Talk:Okopipi (software tool)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:


Contents

[edit] Other Antispam Solutions?

The article mentions that the P2P nature of this project is unusual among antispam solutions. What other solutions are out there? Are there wiki articles listing them, and how (generally) they work? If so, why not link there?

[edit] Awesome

I hope that this project reaches its potential. BlueSecurity was cut short in its prime.... Celardore 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously doubtful that this project will ever see the light of day now. Oh well, nice idea. CelardoreTalk 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? - Kittybrewster 23:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Simply because there is no new news for over a month. I feel like tagging this article for notability, seriously. I have tagged this article as unimportant. Nothing has been achieved. It's a ghost project with no claims to notability. Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I amend: I would like to place this article in AFD. Lack of notability, lack of progress, lack of information. Why is it even on WP? Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

This list contains external links which might be useful for the article.

[edit] Notability

I have now edited the article such that it asserts its notability, and have added sources that I believe meet the standards set forth in WP:RS. I have, therefore, removed the notability templates; please feel free to add them back in if there is good reason. Captainktainer * Talk 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


It is still almost pure vaporware though. The most significant thing that has happened in the last couple of months is the release of a less than half done (by the authors definition) of a cleaned up design document. This design document is basically a rehash of the stuff that was on their wiki. While it is the *most* significant thing to happen to the project, it really isn't very significant at all. A sad situation, really.  :-< Wrs1864 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planned AFD again

Since I last nominated this for deletion, still nothing has been done on the project, in nearly four months. I want to nominate again for deletion, because it is still pure vaporware with nothing to show. Saying that though, Duke Nukem Forever has a page. Comments? Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

When I updated the article to point out that this project is basically dead, I considered doing another proposed-deletion or nominating it for articles-for-deletion. I decided to do neither because this project appears to qualify under the WP:WEB criteria, due to the many citations in various news reports. I could see the article to be significantly rewritten in order to document what actually happened and get rid of all the WP:crystal ball conjectures. Wrs1864

[edit] ".. the project has yet to produce a single line of code"

The link here shows that coding has started: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FredTheDeadHead (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 October 2006.
besides which the original code is in the public domain, so all that has to be done is recreate using Peer-to-Peer. In any event, if the existence of this article prompts somebody else to take on the project, then it has been remarkably useful. - Kittybrewster 10:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, since I originally wrote the "hasn't produced a single line of code" line, someone has come forward to claim that they are "still working on a prototype". However, others have claimed this kind of thing before, this person doesn't have access to the okopipi code repository, and the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yes, even though the original blug frog code has long been floating around, the point is that no one has done that critical "just recreate using P2P" part. When code is actually released, *then* change the article. Wrs1864 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I missed out the 'publish' part and assumed you meant that no coding had been done at all, I'm very sorry. FredTheDeadHead 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, I originally wrote "produce" instead of "publish", which is ambigous about whether code was being made public or not. As far as claims for any code written for the okopipi project, the person who step forward in the above thread saying they are working on a prototype had never posted to the mailing lists before and has not posted since. Worse, Journeyman is now asking on the #okopipi IRC channel if anyone would like to take over for him in pushing development forward. Journeyman originally took over about a month or so ago when no one else was doing anything. Despite Journeyman being one of the founders of the project and knowing other founders, he has had a very hard time with simple things like getting the website updated. At this point, I strongly suspect that anyone who *does* start producing code will have to go create a new project because it will be far too much work to get response from the people who control the okopipi name.  :-< Wrs1864 17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Aye, that might have been it. And I'd just come from the Blue Frog page, which does have a bitch tonne of lies on it. It's a shame though, Blue Frog worked really well for me, and now I get so much spam it's insane. FredTheDeadHead 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Journeyman is clearly still involved per the link I have put on the main page "How it will work". I am now getting 4,000 spam emails a day. - Kittybrewster 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Is this a joke? Or are spammers themselves pulling our legs?"

More than a year has gone and NOTHING has happened! Who can still believe in Okopipi? I wonder if those who "work" on it are not spammers themselves who just want to mislead to prevent that SERIOUS work is done, like reviving the Blue Frog in a new and safe version. Jan Erik Sigdell

OKOPIPI IS DEAD! Read the blogs under http://www.okopipi.org/forum... I suspect it was a hoax from the beginning... JES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.216.96 (talk) 12:28, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't understand "JES" as being a short form of my signature above, here it is in full: Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.89.53 (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't panic :) The signature was added automatically by a Wikipedia script. Alex Pankratov 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article still here?

Heck, I'm sure I could create a software project with ambitions and goals, and have it go nowhere. I notice that this article has (for some reason) survived two AFDs, so I'm reluctant to start another one. I changed the article to reflect past tense. I don't think that over twelve months of inactivity and over two years of lack of results can really attest to this being anything other than vaporware. I guess Duke Nukem Forever has an article, but that is an example famous for being pure vapor.

It was a nice idea, but it was really only ever that - an idea. Okopipi never went anywhere, and by all indications, never will. Keep the article if you must, but bear in mind that the evidence suggests it will never amount to anything; and I think the article should make that clear. Blammermouth (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article cites no useful sources. I'm not a 'deletionist' (I've been on wiki for years and never really *wanted* an article deleted) but I feel that this article does not achieve anything. What will somebody just happening on this article randomly think? I imagine that they would think "why am I reading this article about something that is an idea at best, abandoned by its creators, and never actually achieved anything?" I've changed to a stronger opinion, just because somebody had an idea, doesn't make it worthy of any attention.

Somebody please delete this article, it does the wiki community more harm than good.

I have plans to invent a perpetual motion machine. Shall we create an article on my potential invention? Blammermouth (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it survived two afds, it probably will survive another. If you fell you can make really good argument based on policy, it might be deleted. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should stick around be cause this project at one time attracted enough attention to make it notable and therefore worthy of a wikipedia article. Yes, the project never actually accomplished anything, but it isn't easy to attract as much media attention as this project did. If your idea for perpetual motion machine attracts as much attention as okopipi did, they, yes, you could have an article. Please read the two previous AfD discussions before trying again. For what it is worth, I think the recent edits changing stuff to past tense and such are quite appropriate. It is a dead project, useful only at a lesson for other all-hype projects. I think it would be best to just leave it in peace. Wrs1864 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I sort of agree that this article doesn't belong. The software doesn't exist and likely will never exist because the people that supposedly were supposed to work on it, never really did. Too bad we can't get a consensus. Enigma message 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read what Wrs1864 had to say? Whether or not they produced anything useful is the wrong question to ask; it is completely irrelevant for Wikipedia. That's what the notability guideline is saying. -- intgr [talk] 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I read Wrs's reply after I typed out my message, and I can sort of see the point. I would still say that Okopipi is not notable enough for its own article, however. Enigma message 02:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project changed name

Okopipi changed name (unofficially, it seems) to Habu in 2006, although it was continued by a different developer (see http://code.google.com/p/habu/wiki/About). Although Habu hasn't been updated since 2007 either. Nevertheless it has a page on AMO @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/2672 and a SourceForge project page @ http://habu.sourceforge.net/. We should probably update the article to reflect the fact that there is an updated version called Habu (since people interested in Blue Frog / Okopipi will be interested in Habu (like I was until I discovered it was Thunderbird only))... Most of the discussion above is also made irrelevant by this fact. --Seb7 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Habu appears to not be a replacement/name change of okopipi, but the independently developed thunderbird plug-in. The plug-in project was never hosted on okipipi's servers and since okipipi never had working code, there is no real relationship between the two projects, any more than all wikis are related to wikipedia. Wrs1864 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)