Talk:Linux Router Project

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dcinege should stay way from this page[edit]

Dcinege, aka Dave Cinege, should not be editing this page. Why? WP:NPOV & WP:NOR. --Stuinzuri (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dcinege is an authoritative source[edit]

Dcinege, me Dave Cinege, actually wrote this software and rewrote the article a few years ago. If someone doesn't feel it's neutral then edit it as such. The current article appears to be edited to marginalize the project, by people that do like it and/or me.

Stuinzuri edits have removed references and appear to be vandalism. His justification is a personal attack against me. (?!? Are you serious?) That purged content has been restored.

LRP is still relevant to this day, especially with the active use of derivatives and the lawsuits surrounding Busybox. Regardless it's historically relevant, otherwise one may as well delete the article on MS-DOS; it's not actively maintained and hasn't had a release in 10 years as well.

Information referring to other projects 'taking over' or 'continuing on' LRP are false. There were never (to date and my knowledge) any efforts to continue further development on LRP as released, or what was in progress. (Some of the specifications of what was in development were posted to the mailing list making them 'published'.)

Many derivatives of LRP are currently maintained, however viewed as an Operating System no fundamental architectural changes took place. From my point of view that means no development has taken place. Argue the verb-age if you like.

Again LRP was a misnomer is that it was progressing into a complete re-write of the GNU/Linux userland outside of common POSIX dogma. This architectural planning and development is what made it unique and influential, and how it stands out from other distributions of Linux that where merely modified for a specific purpose. (Which is how LRP originally started out.)

Finally information not specific to the software project, obviously, does not belong in the article. -DCinege (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm also an authoritative source for LEAF[edit]

I was a LRP user and I observed the transformation of the project from LRP to LEAF. Efforts by Dcinege to "remove the LEAF advertisement" are stupid... I imagine that most people likely to read this article are people who used to use LRP who know the LRP/LEAF history and how the LRP users migrated to LEAF. Please also note that this change is referenced (unlike most of the rest of this entry). If anyone familiar with LRP wants to independently verify this, just look at the image names which are identical (e.g., Bearing, Dachstein). Or read this /. article which mentions LEAF as a successor project repeatedly: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/03/06/23/0336228/linux-router-project-dead 67.162.21.248 (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]