Talk:Geeknet

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force. Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Macwhiz, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 18 August 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Isn't the stock chart image a bit too tacky?

--69.214.224.74 07:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that tacky, since VA Linux is a classic example of a "dot com bubble" company. -- Kaszeta 11:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the early stock price chart too, even though I'm a fan of VA Software now. As noted in the article, VA Linux had the biggest first-day pop in US (Worldwide?) IPO history. Then it plummeted from about $320 to about 50 cents. Quite notable, IMHO. I did ad a link for a current interactive chart to the text. JonWinge 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, what does VA stand for? --DevastatorIIC 09:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

the last name of the two founders: Vera and Augustin? 16@r 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is in fact true. (I used to work there) Cdibona 04:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's nice to know. My first guess was Virginia, but now I see that they were in California when they named the company. wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why does their software call home when I start my computer? 66.35.250.99 is called REPEATEDLY when my computer is started. Only know that because Peer Guardian blocks that address. What is this software, and how do I get rid of it?

This is Wikipedia, not a support forum. I'd use Wireshark to find out what host name it talks to, though. -- Martin von Gagern (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have thoroughly fixed and updated the links used as references for this article because they had quite a few faults. The essential problem is the use of bare links; i.e., a URL with no other identifying information. These frequently break, and without data like news article titles or website page titles, it is often impossible even to know where to look for a replacement source. (Archive sites like the Wayback Machine or Google sometimes help, but often do not. In this case, all of the VA Software press releases disappeared when the company moved their website to sourceforge.com, and the archive sites only caught two of them before they ceased to exist.

In short, bare links should be never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. You don't necessarily have to create a fully filled-out citation, but at least include basic title or descriptive information with the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article not show cultural aspects, important hosted softwares, etc. The focus is only financial aspects of the comapany and its iniciatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.56.30 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can't seem to find any sources regarding its closure?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronalde (talk • contribs) 08:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually I found the answer in http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/03/05/linuxcom-saved-from-whatever-happened-to-files/ : it was taken over by the linux foundation— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronalde (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I admit it's been a while since I've seen the term OSDN (Open Source Developers Network), but I was looking for some good resources for Free and open source software and pulled that acronym from the dusty corners of my brain. My memories say that they were the Slashdot, ThinkGeek, Freshmeat folks, and the official sourceforge site listing confirmed that for me.

Anyway, that site had no mention of "OSDN" though I was sure I wasn't making this up. I thought I'd head here to wikipedia to get a sense of what happened ... the history and whatnot. This page does a fairly good job of explaining things, except there's only one mention of the OSDN, and that's cuz I got to the page via redirect from OSDN.

Am I the only one who got a little confused by the lack of mention of the OSDN, or was it just some really short flash-in-the-pan, minor aspect of the history of SourceForge, Inc. that folks feel that it deserves/needs no explanation whatsoever?

I'm asking here because I don't want to just assume that my confusion is universal or even that my opinion's even all that valid. Just confused. DigitalSorceress -- (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see that the October 1, 2009 version you read before posting this just says "Open Source Developers Network (OSDN) was renamed to Open Source Technology Group (OSTG)" in the history section, but later in the initial public offering section (which should be, and now is, a subsection of history), "shortly after, all assets of Andover.net were transferred to a new division of VA Linux called Open Source Developers Network".

This has since been reorganized into chronological order to make the history more clear. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Performed a general copy-edit of the article. Noted several places that should have additional citations. It seems like the recent parts of the entry are starting to become more of a random collection of financial factoids and trivia than an encyclopedic entry... Macwhiz (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geeknet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091116082737/http://geek.net/about/contact1/ to http://geek.net/about/contact1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111031123247/http://freecode.com/articles/whats-in-a-name to http://freecode.com/articles/whats-in-a-name

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Aug. 15, 2000 – Andover.net's assets were transferred to a new division of VA Linux called the Open Source Development NetworkOpen Source Development Network (OSDN). OSDN launched a beta site, OSDN.com^[1]
• nost:OSDN shows that we have history of OSDN dating to August 27, 2001.
• at 15:51, 25 February 2002 a content fork was started at Open Source Development NetworkOpen Source Development Network.
• at 19:11, 14 August 2003‎ content was merged from OSDN to Open Source Technology Group.
• July 27, 2004 – OSDN was renamed to Open Source Technology Group (OSTG) in 2004.^[2]
• at 18:03, 30 July 2004‎ Open Source Development NetworkOpen Source Development Network moved to Open Source Technology GroupOpen Source Technology Group (a redirect Open Source Development NetworkOpen Source Development Network → Open Source Technology GroupOpen Source Technology Group was created).
• this 18:09, 30 July 2004 edit changed the name. I don't see the actual move in this page history, as the oldest moves recorded in the move log only go back to June 28, 2005, when MediaWiki 1.5 was introduced.
• on February 3, 2008 Open Source Technology Group was merged into SourceForge, Inc. This is the last version of Open Source Technology Group before the merge. Page history remains at this title.

Given this history, and the trivial one-edit overlap in these page histories (i.e. only one edit of parallel history), I am going to hist-merge OSDN into Open Source Technology GroupOpen Source Technology Group, to clear the way for moving SourceForge.JP → OSDN. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am glad you untangled that but I thought I would mention that "Open Source Developers Network" (mentioned at nost:OSDN) is some sort of misnomer as historic sources show the correct name is/was "Open Source Development Network" (the same name the current OSDN and OSDN K.K. are based upon) was the proper name. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply