Template talk:FOSS: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
New group for compilers & interpreters? |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::I agree that the app list will get too long. Perhaps it should just link o [[List of open source software packages]] instead as that page seems to serve much the same idea? - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
::I agree that the app list will get too long. Perhaps it should just link o [[List of open source software packages]] instead as that page seems to serve much the same idea? - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Good move. I see a plenty of space for some "open source software packages" templates.--[[User:Kozuch|Kozuch]] ([[User talk:Kozuch|talk]]) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== New group for compilers & interpreters? == |
== New group for compilers & interpreters? == |
Revision as of 23:00, 24 March 2008
This Template
I created this template as a result of a request at Template talk:Linux.
I consider that it needs a lot of development and also that it needs to be put on a lot of pages. Please feel free to do both and let's see how we can evolve it! - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be appropriate to add the portal links to the nav template? I see no reason to clutter articles with both.
- Also: I think that the 'applications' row should be removed (unless someone can provide an objective means for deciding which applications to include--the scope is just too large). --Karnesky (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The idea of merging the portal into the nav template sounds great, if you know how to make that work, please do.
- I agree that the app list will get too long. Perhaps it should just link o List of open source software packages instead as that page seems to serve much the same idea? - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good move. I see a plenty of space for some "open source software packages" templates.--Kozuch (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the app list will get too long. Perhaps it should just link o List of open source software packages instead as that page seems to serve much the same idea? - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
New group for compilers & interpreters?
I would be tempted to add GCC and some other open source compilers, but it probably doesn't make sense to include it with the other applications. Perhaps we need a new group for Computer Languages? -- Schapel (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good as long as they are free/open source - feel, free to edit the template. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)