Talk:GFTP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] gFTP on cygwin
Someone more familiar with Cygwin & apps should comment on running gFTP under windows. I originally posted CyGNOME, including gFTP 2.0.14. There was a comment that It appears the gFTP port for Windows never went anywhere; the Cygnome site was last updated in 2004 and has nothing about gFTP now. The comment is partially correct--CyGNOME is no longer in development. But there IS a gFTP port on the sourceforge project page for download. I replaced the link to CyGNOME-2, including gFTP 2.0.16. CyGNOME-2 is also no longer in development. The GNOME libraries now ship with Cygwin, but I don't know if gFTP is part of it & don't know the preferred way to run gFTP under win32. -- Karnesky 22:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] windows?
are you sure? --83.190.205.33 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Project status
An anonymous user has twice made changes, claiming that the project is inactive. There were changes to the SVN trunk just two days ago [1], so this not only constitutes WP:OR, but is just plain wrong. --Karnesky 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, what I said the second time was:
Although there is some level of developer activity in gFTP's CVS repositories, over 2 years have passed without a new release of the application. The current version was released in February of 2005[2], and there are currently no scheduled alpha or beta releases for the project.
That is 100% factual and supported by the project's own web pages. So this is wrong:
this not only constitutes WP:OR
...and this is false:
but is just plain wrong.
24.229.190.185 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I admit I was mistaken about what you added the second time. However, I fail to see why this belongs in the article. It still reads with bias to me & still hints at stagnation. A LOT of apps go more than two years between releases. gFTP, like many apps, has not had a release schedule (so that no plans on alpha/beta releases is a red herring). Since there have been no reliable secondary sources which have commented on stagnancy, I do still think this is OR--you're cherry-picking first-hand data to imply a conclusion which you independently arrived at. --Karnesky 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
