Difference between revisions of "User talk:BABA200"

From Free Software Directory
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
;All entries where applicable should also have links to:
 
;All entries where applicable should also have links to:
: This I do not specially to promote these sites. ([https://trisquel.info/ Trisquel] I would promote)
+
: This I do not specially to promote these sites. ([https://trisquel.info/ Trisquel] I would promote.)
 
: There are many reasons like verify their authenticity have them maintained/developed and promote free software.
 
: There are many reasons like verify their authenticity have them maintained/developed and promote free software.
 
: All software should have an (or more) independent developer/maintainer. So these sites should not be their main site if could.
 
: All software should have an (or more) independent developer/maintainer. So these sites should not be their main site if could.
Line 129: Line 129:
  
 
Some time ago on the FSF IRC channel I asked to make someone an administrator (I mentioned early access with approval rights but now full rights seems also ok) because the current administrators do not seem to review/check at all. This was the example I showed (the second revision (also the editor (someone) I meant) contains fatal mistakes but it was approved): http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Which .
 
Some time ago on the FSF IRC channel I asked to make someone an administrator (I mentioned early access with approval rights but now full rights seems also ok) because the current administrators do not seem to review/check at all. This was the example I showed (the second revision (also the editor (someone) I meant) contains fatal mistakes but it was approved): http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Which .
I would also like some sort of supervisor who watch and advise unexperienced editors for example, I should also already have given the power to approve my own edits. I have edited 250 entries. I will not do any edits anymore because I do not want my hard work also go to waste.
+
I would also like some sort of supervisor (a paid job I propose) who watch and advise unexperienced editors for example, I should also already have given the power to approve my own edits. I have edited 250 entries. I will not do any edits anymore because I do not want my hard work also go to waste.
  
 
=='''Messages'''==
 
=='''Messages'''==

Revision as of 02:02, 20 March 2017

Trying to construct some ideas about the FSD

The GNU universe
http://www.gnu.org/
http://www.fsf.org/
https://savannah.gnu.org/ (https://savannah.nongnu.org/)
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/
http://download.savannah.gnu.org/ (http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/)
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/ (http://web.cvs.savannah.nongnu.org/)
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/ (http://cvs.savannah.nongnu.org/)
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/ (http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/)
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/ (http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/)
http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/ (http://bzr.savannah.nongnu.org/)
http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/ (http://hg.savannah.nongnu.org/)
http://arch.savannah.gnu.org/
more or less:
http://puszcza.gnu.org.ua/
http://gna.org/ (!!! ENDS THIS YEAR !!!)
All entries where applicable should also have links to
This I do not specially to promote these sites. (Trisquel I would promote.)
There are many reasons like verify their authenticity have them maintained/developed and promote free software.
All software should have an (or more) independent developer/maintainer. So these sites should not be their main site if could.
This way you also notice problems like pressure to maintain needed software especially Debian. (At least thats my thought)
-- Please let me know which sites to add (or remove) and other ways to promote specially GNU and High Priority. --
https://tracker.debian.org/
http://packages.trisquel.info/belenos/ (belenos = latest version)
https://metacpan.org/release/
https://pypi.python.org/pypi
https://rubygems.org/gems/
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/
https://hackage.haskell.org/packages/
http://www.pygame.org/
http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/
https://octave.sourceforge.io/
https://wiki.gnome.org/
https://www.kde.org/applications/
not sure
http://codehaus-plexus.github.io/
http://commons.apache.org/
http://doctrine-project.org/
http://felix.apache.org/
http://gap-system.org/
http://maven.apache.org/
http://pear.php.net/
http://pecl.php.net/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/
http://shinken.io/
http://snapframework.com/
https://trac-hacks.org/
https://wiki.lxde.org/en/Main_Page
https://www.horde.org/apps
http://windowmaker.org/
http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/biomodels-main/
http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.videolan.org/
http://xmailserver.org/
undefined
https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/
http://code.enthought.com/
http://pear.horde.org/
https://wiki.debian.org/
https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs

Usefull links found through the FSD

Usefull in the search of lost software
standard I search these:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/
https://sourceforge.net/directory/
https://github.com/
https://archive.org/
other places:
https://launchpad.net/
https://gitorious.org/ (Download and search through (11mB): https://gitorious.org/index-list.html)
https://code.google.com/archive/p/
https://github.com/BackupTheBerlios (If found a link to berlios (also search sourceforge (not only -> https://sourceforge.net/u/berliosrobot/profile/))
http://www.ibiblio.org/catalog/
Smaller software sites
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/
http://newbreedsoftware.com/
http://repo.cat-v.org/
http://repo.or.cz/
http://www.sourcefiles.org/

Thoughts

I think we should always promote C (which I do not know how) and Guile.

GNU should force more control over what they want to call GNU software. (!!! For now I refuse to say GNU/foo !!!)

Base URLs for GNU software Base Names:

http://gnu.org/software/foo
http://gnu.org/software/foo/manual
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/foo
http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/foo
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/foo (For the website other repositories should also have a base URL for this please seperate website and software.)
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/foo (Look at the crap it is now, some loose files and directories can go to a better place all the loose text (only pointers) files/dirs can go and all NON-GNU can also leave.)
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/foo (There has to be a better solution/name a seperate manuals section is not needed.)
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/foo
http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/foo
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/foo
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/foo
http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/foo
http://arch.savannah.gnu.org/archives/foo
http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/foo
http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/foo
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/foo.git
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/foo.git
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=foo.git

Extra (try it):

http://tracker.debian.org/pkg/foo
gnu.org/software: There are at least 10 base names listed that you wont find anywhere and there should not be a decommissioned section, GNU has to decide what it wants to list as GNU software.
Maillist messages about GNU software I wrote:
GNU Software not on FSD
"Official GNU software" in savannah
Wrong names for gnu items?
Reaction on: GNU Software not on FSD

Every software entree in the FSD I treat as very important GNU software is even more important.

What do you need to do before you be noticed?

Some time ago on the FSF IRC channel I asked to make someone an administrator (I mentioned early access with approval rights but now full rights seems also ok) because the current administrators do not seem to review/check at all. This was the example I showed (the second revision (also the editor (someone) I meant) contains fatal mistakes but it was approved): http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Which . I would also like some sort of supervisor (a paid job I propose) who watch and advise unexperienced editors for example, I should also already have given the power to approve my own edits. I have edited 250 entries. I will not do any edits anymore because I do not want my hard work also go to waste.

Messages



Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the page “GNU Free Documentation License”.

The copyright and license notices on this page only apply to the text on this page. Any software or copyright-licenses or other similar notices described in this text has its own copyright notice and license, which can usually be found in the distribution or license text itself.