Talk:Realbasic/Archive 4

message: I have compiled evidence that User:TruthInAdvertising, User:BoycottRealBasic2005, User:FalseInformation, and 67.0.* are all the same user.  See User:Vslashg/TruthInAdvertising Sockpuppets for the full list. Vslashg (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now also posting under User:Aaronballman BudVVeezer 05:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet evidence 

message: The article is now a very good one. My compliments to the author(s). --Kiam
:: Unfortunately, the vandal is back again now that the article is unprotected.  Oh well, it was a nice week while it lasted. BudVVeezer 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, not back very often it seems. Cheers, I'll keep monitoring per usual. Sasquatch  t|c 04:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, he's been harassing the [usenet] group instead.  Maybe he's moved on to more unmoderated stomping grounds. It's too much to hope that he simply disappeared off the face of the planet. BudVVeezer 14:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like he targets VersionTracker, too ... oh, he's also taken to leaving insulting comments and removing other people's comments on my own talk page. ... Warrens 03:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's a real work of art.  At least most places are moderated enough that his unconstructive rants can be dealt with appropriately.  One can only imagine what sort of issues it takes to harangue a product for as long as this nut has, as opposed to just getting it off your chest and moving on.  BudVVeezer 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, patience always pays. But in this case is bad placed, as he could spend his energies in something more useful. --Kiam 09:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like everyone's favorite [lunatic] is back at it again.  At least this time the AntiVandalBot picked up on it! BudVVeezer 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My compliments 

message: So I noticed that some possibly valid inclusions have been reverted on the main article.  Since there's been so much vandalism to the main page, I can understand the reflex to revert changes that look even mildly suspicious.  However, if you're going to remove someone's link (which isn't obvious vandalism), can you please put a comment explaining why you've removed it?  Or add a section to the talk page to discuss it?  For instance, I don't see an issue with the link that was removed, so I don't understand why it was pulled.  I was tempted to add it back in since it contains useful information for anyone interested in REALbasic programming, but since I don't know why it was pulled in the first place, I wouldn't feel right doing that.
Thoughts?  Comments? BudVVeezer 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the policy on external links.  Offering classes on a subject is not a reason for inclusion of an exernal link.  I apologize for letting the level of vandalism get to me, I should have given an explanation for that removal. Shell babelfish 23:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reading material.  While I'll try to follow the guidelines for Wiki, I have to wonder about the validity of them in the case of a programming tool.  Wouldn't having a section related to 3rd party assistance (even if it is commercial) assist someone reading up about the entry?  For instance, if someone was comparing REALbasic to say, KBasic and Visual Basic, wouldn't the 3rd party information also assist them in garnering knowledge about the overall product?  I suppose it could also be pretty hard to say what gets included and what doesn't though -- might make for a really large page vs hard feelings over not being "good enough."  I guess I talked myself out of it.  ;-)  In any case, thanks for the clarification. BudVVeezer 01:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Non-Vandalism 

message: The pictures which are currently uploaded were taken for RB2005r1, however, the visual style of the IDE has changed a fair amount since then.  For instance, in RB2006r3, there's no gutter around the border of the window, the listboxes hide their scrollbars, some of the icons have changed, etc.
Does anyone see any reason not to update the pictures? BudVVeezer 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to update images? 

message: I wonder why the link to http://www.extremebasic.com/ keeps getting removed, giving either no reason or wrong reasons (such as calling it spam)?
: Because it has nothing to do with REALbasic.  The fact that Andrew started RB 10+ years ago is the only tenuous link there is.  What's more, EB is in alpha form and is barely being worked on and the project has been scrapped before.  I don't see how it's relevant to anyone coming to the RB entry.  Heck, EB isn't even a BASIC language anymore.
: From http://extremebasic.blogspot.com/
: <html>
: <body>
: <%
: ? "Hello world"
: %>
: </body>
: </html>
: BudVVeezer 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note: I'm going to leave the link up there until others weigh in on the topic.  Personally, I don't think it belongs there, but I'm not going to yank it unless others agree as well.
True, the EB link is not related to RB. I just would like to have some link to Andrew Barry, and the EB link is currently the only one I'd know how to make contact with him, since a simple google search for his name does not reveal much. (and please do not remove other ppl's words from this Talk page, you even removed my signature - especially if you want to tell others what's "right" here on the wiki) Tempel 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So if you agree that EB has nothing to do with RB, then why do you feel it should be included in an article about RB?  Historical notes aside, the EB project appears to be dead and isn't related to this topic... BudVVeezer 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  After no updates for a year to this "project", and his discussion board has been down for months, I am removing the EB link.  Aside from the fact that Andrew Barry once worked for REAL Software (and I don't see links to other ex-employee pages which aren't related to REALbasic), there's no correlation between his dead project and REALbasic. BudVVeezer 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Andrew Barry's new project 

message: I reverted the last change to the main page because it's not entirely accurate.  Not all REALbasic applications require GTK to be installed (for instance, console applications do not require GTK).  I think it'd be appropriate to put a link to GTK somewhere in the article, but make sure it's clear as to when it's needed.BudVVeezer 03:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. Im not sure if its specific, but a basic console program with a serversocket instance requires GTK, and will simply crash without it. Anyone vote for a change to that paragraph? - TkTech 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but you're still wrong.  REALbasic console applications do not require GTK.  The requirement for GTK changed a long time ago, and a simple ldd on the built console application will show you that it doesn't require GTK (or any GUI toolkit, including X11).  Tested with 2006r4; perhaps your version of REALbasic is older and simply doesn't support the feature?  BudVVeezer 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Realbasic 5.5, the most widely used version, requires GTK to be installed for a console app to run. Not sure why, since it doesnt appear to call any functions from it, just links it. Ill decompile a sample app and go over the addressing, it has to call if for some reason... but without trailing off, the majority of RB console apps require GTK. Maybe in the future when RB 5.5 is as antique and Basica it should be removed, but for now I propose to revert your change back to requiring GTK. - TkTech 05:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless you have proof to the contrary, I claim that "most widely used version" is quite incorrect.  Regardless, the simple fact is that the current shipping version (and all officially supported versions) of REALbasic do not require GTK for console apps.  Claiming that an older, unsupported version of a product requires GTK is rather moot.  It's like claiming that REALbasic doesn't support SSL because 4.0 didn't have it. BudVVeezer 20:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about the last revert 

message: I've taken the liberty of updading the archives here to use an Archivebox template, and a navigation template on the archive pages themselves. That will hopefully make it easier to navigate from page to page in the future. Strangely, the template gave me more trouble than usual on this set of archives. Might've been something in the formatting. -- Kesh 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives updated 

message: I reverted the change because Professional Edition and Standard Edition are proper nouns and part of the product's name (hence they should be capitalized).  Just an FYI (didn't see a way for popups to let me enter that as the information for the revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BudVVeezer (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick note about the Feb 5 2007 revert