Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) m moved Talk:Cydia (application) to Talk:Cydia: Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=423366894#movereq-Cydia_.28application.29)&wpMovetalk=1 |
Chromewiki (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
It does seem a little weird. We could follow the example of [[Jailbreak (iPhone)]] and [[Springboard (iPhone)]] and rename it to Cydia (iPhone). Sound good? [[User:Dreamyshade|Dreamyshade]] ([[User talk:Dreamyshade|talk]]) 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
It does seem a little weird. We could follow the example of [[Jailbreak (iPhone)]] and [[Springboard (iPhone)]] and rename it to Cydia (iPhone). Sound good? [[User:Dreamyshade|Dreamyshade]] ([[User talk:Dreamyshade|talk]]) 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Nope. As per [[WP:NCDAB]] it should be named using "the generic class that includes the topic". In this case, Cydia is an application or a piece of software. [[User:Brianreading|Brian Reading]] ([[User talk:Brianreading|talk]]) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) |
:Nope. As per [[WP:NCDAB]] it should be named using "the generic class that includes the topic". In this case, Cydia is an application or a piece of software. [[User:Brianreading|Brian Reading]] ([[User talk:Brianreading|talk]]) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
It's clear of course that jailbreaking is legal; however, if a popular manufacturer of airplanes were to make an airplane that regardless of purpose was very very easy to fly and used 99.99% of the time by millions of users to transport illegal drugs would it not be a bit strange that that fact would not be mentioned in an article about said aircraft? This is I admit a fantastic example, but it points to the failure of this article. This article is written from a self serving stand point-- almost a commercial for Cydia downplaying its author's role in the piracy of 1000s of paid apps. The author of Cydia has helped trash the work of 1000s of developers, yet this amazing accomplishment-- this dark cloud is not mentioned at all in the article. Why not? This is my problem with this wikipedia article about Cydia. |
|||
The solution is to add a portion called "The Use of Cydia for Piracy." Without that somewhere in the article, the article is missing 99.9% of what Cydia is to most people. |
|||
I also noticed that some contributors have been trying to manipulate the article to be "pro Cydia" thus downplaying its common dubious/notorious use. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chromewiki|Chromewiki]] ([[User talk:Chromewiki|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chromewiki|contribs]]) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Misc == |
== Misc == |
Revision as of 23:20, 11 April 2011
Apple Inc. Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
history
Does anyone know the history or development milestones/pitfalls of cydia? Could this be included in a section in the main article? Why did Cydia come about, how did it come about, etc. ..? --74.179.99.253 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I remember that cydia became dominant over installer as it was included for the 2.0 jailbreak. It was in beta during 1.0 but became dominate on 2.0 because it was released earlier and more stably. During early 3.0 it was challenged by icy but icy's developer gave up. Cydia was made to distribute apps in .debs and other linuxy standards that where better then installer's legacy system. (sorry thats about all i remember.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alek2407 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Legality
Is this legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.141.2 (talk)
Do you mean: is installing Cydia legal? Random Wikipedia readers probably aren't the best people to ask; you can decide for yourself by reading some news articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It isn't legal (Cydia is legal , but jailbreaking isn't). But nothing will happen to you if you use it so feel free to do so Bang! (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- The legality of jailbreaking is still in question. Apple Inc. has claimed that is illegal under the DMCA while the EFF has asked the Copyright Office to make an exemption for jailbreaking: Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking is Illegal | Electronic Frontier Foundation. Douglaswth (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's also a question of where you live. DMCA = U.S. only. 154.5.62.248 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Update on this discussion, just for the record: U.S. Declares iPhone Jailbreaking Legal, Over Apple’s Objections from July 26, 2010. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Article title
Is calling this Cydia (iPhone 3GS) really the best way? Wouldn't Cydia (application) be more accurate? The heading seems to imply that this is an operating system for the iPhone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It does seem a little weird. We could follow the example of Jailbreak (iPhone) and Springboard (iPhone) and rename it to Cydia (iPhone). Sound good? Dreamyshade (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. As per WP:NCDAB it should be named using "the generic class that includes the topic". In this case, Cydia is an application or a piece of software. Brian Reading (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's clear of course that jailbreaking is legal; however, if a popular manufacturer of airplanes were to make an airplane that regardless of purpose was very very easy to fly and used 99.99% of the time by millions of users to transport illegal drugs would it not be a bit strange that that fact would not be mentioned in an article about said aircraft? This is I admit a fantastic example, but it points to the failure of this article. This article is written from a self serving stand point-- almost a commercial for Cydia downplaying its author's role in the piracy of 1000s of paid apps. The author of Cydia has helped trash the work of 1000s of developers, yet this amazing accomplishment-- this dark cloud is not mentioned at all in the article. Why not? This is my problem with this wikipedia article about Cydia.
The solution is to add a portion called "The Use of Cydia for Piracy." Without that somewhere in the article, the article is missing 99.9% of what Cydia is to most people.
I also noticed that some contributors have been trying to manipulate the article to be "pro Cydia" thus downplaying its common dubious/notorious use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromewiki (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Misc
> Cydia is *usually* installed on an iPhone via jailbreaking
Are there other ways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.36.209 (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No , there aren't any other ways. Cydia requires full access to filesystem. PCrew00 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
> Can somebody please write an introduction to Cydia which is understandable as well for people who aren't nerds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.14.223 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk pages are not for discussing general questions, but simply for discussion on the editing of the article. Brian Reading (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think most of these questions so far have been helpful in pointing out parts of the article that needed clarification...but anyway, I agree with 94.212.14.223 that the introduction was a little obscure, expecting the reader to recognize "APT" and "dpkg". I tried adding a plainer first sentence. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The reason we use Wikilinks is to allow readers to further research if they do not understand what something is. For example, if a reader didn't understand what a "video game" was in the sentence "Tap Tap Revolution is a video game.", then there is the ability to click and understand that topic. Some things simply can't be dumbed down enough without losing its meaning. Computer science is a field of science just like any natural science. You wouldn't head to the Chemical compound article, and expect them to rewrite the introduction to not use terms like "Chemical substance" or "Coordinate covalent bonds". Basically, to reword it would disallow those willing to simply click and read to have a good understanding. That's a shame. Brian Reading (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of this part of the Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Lead section#Provide an accessible overview. If I was explaining Cydia to a friend, I would say a high-level overview like "it's a way to download non-Apple-approved applications after you jailbreak your iPhone" rather than "it's an interface for APT". I think there can be an accurate and useful lead sentence without requiring specialized knowledge, although my initial attempt probably isn't perfect. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- When you represent Cydia as anything else other than a GUI, you are distorting the situation. Cydia is NOT a way to download non-Apple-approved applications. It is a GUI to a way. APT and dpkg is the actual way. To disregard that, and pretend that there are such things as "Cydia applications" and that apps are actually being "distributed through" Cydia is just flat-out incorrect. The apps are being distributed using APT, and Cydia allows users to have a GUI interface rather than a text-based one. That is the entirety of it. Although it is important to provide accessibility to readers, it is more important to introduce only facts to the article. There are some topics that require anterior knowledge to understand, and this is one of them. For example, if a person didn't know what a Nation state was, they would have a difficult time understanding an article about Australia. This doesn't mean that we change the facts to allow someone without the necessary knowledge to get a distorted gist of it. I appreciate your contributions to the article, and hope this doesn't come off as uncivil. Thanks. Brian Reading (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- But Brian, you also have to take into account that the Apple iPhone and ipod Touch are mass-market devices, there's media interest in jailbreaking, and perhaps the majority of people reading this article might be iP/iPT owners who aren't computing majors, who want to find out what this Cydia thing is that people keep referring to in the YouTube "How to jailbreak your iPhone" videos. Saying that those people shouldn't be reading the article unless they're prepared to go away and read up on APT and dpkg first isn't fair, and if all wikipedia article authors took that attitude, then perhaps the APT and dpkg articles might in turn expect the reader to go away and read a set of further articles first, and so on. The first papragraph of a wp article should be as self-explanatory and free from jargon as possible. Ideally, the whole introduction should be intelligible to most Wikipedia users, with the more scary material moved to the body article. For the benefit of anyone who then cares enough about the subject to read the entire introduction, or the entire article, you can then include a section stressing that Cydia is "merely" a user interface that sits on top of APT/dpkg. But you don't define or explain Cydia in the opening paragraph in a way that requires foreknowledge of APT/dpkg on the part of the user, any more that you'd write a wikipedia article "explaining" what a virus is by presupposing that all interested readers knew (or cared) what amino acids are, or an article "explaining" email as being a set of application and gui layers sitting on top of a set of named packet transfer and communication protocols.
- To use your "Australia" example, Australia isn't just a nation state, it is also an continent and an island, and a place on the map. A politics major might argue that the concept of "Australia" needs to be defined in a purely political and historical context, but a geologist might argue that politics is irrelevant to understanding what "Australia" really is, and that anyone reading an article on Australia needs to have some prior understanding of plate tectonics, or the concept "Australia" won't make sense. But to a little kid looking up the wikipedia article, who knows nothing about politics or continental drift, Australia is still perfectly intelligible as "that funny place where the koala bears come from". The kid might want to know where Australia is, what the weather and scenery is like, and what other funny animals it has. To them, Australia is a "place", and the constitutional status and tectonic boundaries might be trivia compared to the more important defining characteristics of it having kangaroos and duck billed platypuses.
- What I'm trying to say is that there's often more than one technically correct logical way of looking at what an article "is" or should be. There are often multiple correct answers. To an iPhone user, Cydia perhaps really is that icon thing that lets them download software onto a jailbroken phone, and the fact that it happens to use a particular set of underlying code is less interesting. Perhaps even trivia. Perhaps all they need from the article is that one opening descriptive sentence, explaining how Cydia fits into the rest of their life, and they don't need to read anything else in the article. Dreamyshade's summary is valid: to most end-users, there's no functional distinction between a way to do something and "the GUI to the way": the GUI, or the clickable program or buyable product is the way. They interact with email programs without knowing or caring about the engineering differences between POP and IMAP, the internet is the thing that connects their computers togetehr, they don't care what the packet-routing protocols are, or what processor's in their iPhone, or that a cat has 38 chromosomes. If a geneticist writes a Wikipedia article on cats, they may feel that it's overpoweringly important that the fact that cats have 38 chromosomes goes into the first sentence, but to most people, this is an irrelevance.
- The "engineering" description (APT/dpkg do all the work, Cydia is merely the user interface), goes into the body of the article, or perhaps into the latter parts of the introduction. But a technical structural definition using jargon that's only intelligible to specialists normally doesn't go into the first sentence or the first paragraph. ErkDemon (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I respect your attempt to make the article conform to Wikipedia guidelines, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Australia certainly isn't just a nation state, however the Australia article is focusing on the country. There is a separate article for the continent. The purpose of separating the articles is because Australia is legitimately and scientifically two separate concepts. Cydia, which is simply a graphical user interface, is not. Even featured articles require anterior knowledge to understand. Take a look at ROT13, where a reader is required to understand what a substitution cipher is. Rosetta@home specifically states that it is a distributed computing project for protein structure prediction in the first sentence. OpenBSD expects readers to know what a Unix-like operating system is in the first sentence. My point is that you cannot simply rewrite things in such a vague way, as to leave out the core definition of what something is. In the OpenBSD article, in which I pointed out that a reader must understand what an operating system is (a concept that most non-technical savvy people don't understand), it would be inappropriate to rewrite the lead sentence to state: "OpenBSD is a piece of software that lets users control a computer." The reason why is that it disregards the core concepts of OpenBSD as a Unix-like operating system. In the same way that OpenBSD could be "that icon thing that lets them control their computer", it's mostly not end-user function that defines what something is when we're talking about software. Brian Reading (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"Cydia Applications"?
Cydia is a graphical interface to Apt. Calling applications installed through Cydia "Cydia Applications" is inaccurate. 173.88.213.120 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're 100 percent correct. These applications are simply Cocoa Touch + Objective-C applications that are being distributed in '.deb' packages. I'm going to edit the article to reflect this. Thanks for your input. Brian Reading (talk) 7:00, 3 August 2001 (UTC)
Saurik redirect
Is it really appropriate to have the articles Saurik and Jay Freeman redirect here? He is not Cydia. He is not an application. I believe that an effort should be put to write an actual article about him. He does other things besides working with Cydia and I think it's enough to constitute an article on it's own. Unity74 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- He is not, but the general rule for people who are only noted for one thing is to redirect the article into the "main" article that is notable. Possibly the best example of this are murder victims who are often redirected into the murderer articles unless they have achieved lasting coverage (e.g. Natalee Holloway). So far as I can tell, Saurik isn't noted for anything else in the press other than Cydia, so it's redirected for now. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)