Talk:Levanta

A couple thoughts: as the company has moved to San Mateo, the "San Francisco-based" phrase is out of date. How should it be changed? Also, most of the references to the company in this article use the Levanta name, even though most of those phrases describe the company when it was known as Linuxcare. Nobody would know that in the year 2000, a company called Levanta was attempting an initial public offering because the company name was Linuxcare at that time. bneely 06:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it very strange to read this article about "Levanta" when in fact basically none of this was done as the Levanta corporate entity. This is more of a historical document about Linuxcare. I would suggest that there ought to either be:

1. A separate page for Levanta that talks about the current company and a separate page for Linuxcare as a historical company; or 2. A rework of this page to say at the beginning that the company is now Levanta, but then going through the history as Linuxcare.

In either case, I think the text as it is now should say the Linuxcare name, as that was the entity name during that time. User:dyork (Fully disclosure - I was a Linuxcare employee from early 1999 through late 2000.)

I agree with Brett (bneely) and Dan (dyork). This article is about one entity,

named Linuxcare. A wholly different company, named Levanta, happens to have arisen from the remnants of Linuxcare --- and is/was presumably the "successor in interests" to whatever assets and liabilities were retained. However, it's a misdirection to refer to this article as Levanta. Wikipedia is not obliged to name its articles based on legal fictions. This articled should be named "Linuxcare" and linked to any article named Levanta at such time when such an article is deemed appropriate by the Wikipedian community.

(Note: I don't have anything against Levanta ... I don't know that there is anything sufficiently encyclopedic to say about them. They are a software company among thousands in the Silicon Valley and I simply don't know of anything particulary remarkable about them from an encyclopedic perspective). Linuxcare seems to be worthy of an article by sheer dint of the number of well known open source figures who worked there for some brief period of time. In other words someone doing research into the history of Linux could encounter references to "Linuxcare" in enough different places that the article is of interest to an encyclopedia with the broad scope of Wikipedia. I don't currently feel that I'm quite notable enough to warrant an article here. "Linux Gazette Answer Guy" is currently my biggest claim to fame and I'm already named in passing in the article on LG. As with most questions of "notability" it's a judgement call and certainly others are entitled to their opinion. The consensus of the community will eventually prevail. JimD 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (full disclosure: I was also a Linuxcare employee during some of the time that Dan and Brett were there).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Levanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050924160550/http://www.levanta.com:80/ to http://www.levanta.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)