Talk:Revive Adserver

Notability

Its use by Dreamhost for inclusion as an option for all domains in their popular service gives it some notability, though that alone isn't acase for inclusion yo Wikipedia. --Mystalic (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Any talk of OpenX not being notable is ridiculous. This is software the has changed the dynamics on advertising on the internet empowering publishers to generate more advertising revenue and making online businesses viable that once were not. 58.35.240.113 (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I administer an OpenX server for a website that receives 1.5+ million hits per day. It is definitely a product that deserves a Wikipedia article. It has been around for years, having evolved from the previous phpAdsNew and OpenAds systems, and is certainly the best and most popular open source ad-serving application. (--24.58.5.250 (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

Advertisment

"...delivers world-class ad serving functionality..." -> Somebody copy the on-site-description and added it as independent informations. Jschoder (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ref for expansion

"OpenX, Web ad firm, raises $20 million, expects to be profitable within a year". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 31 May 2011. tedder (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, incorporated. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Change article subject to OpenX company, mention software?

Before my most recent edit it would appear OpenX is primarily an open source program, but it seems to be primarily a company, with other offerings. Actually it still appears that way, my edit is just a start. It seems the article should be largely rewritten focus on the company. See SugarCRM for an analogous situation. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. I was thinking about hacking it into OpenX (company) and OpenX (software), but your solution is better. I don't think there are articles for phpAds or phpAdsNew, it seems weird that there would be an article focusing on the OpenX software bit. tedder (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In general I would not object, but I have two concerns. First, at the moment the sentence starting with "OpenX, a Pasadena, California based company..." is inappropriate. The article is still about the software, not the company. I was tempted to simply remove it when I saw the discussion here. I think that until this change of focus is decided, it should be removed. Second, can you show significant coverage for the company in reliable, independent secondary sources? If not, you are risking the removal of the article entirely. While most editors will leave an article about an open source software alone even with minimal notability, this is not the case for companies. --Muhandes (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for OpenX (the company). Here's a quick search, showing non-press-release coverage in 2008, 2009, and (of course) 2011. tedder (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Having concerns does not mean I object. If you think it will stand, go for it. --Muhandes (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done I moved the existing article to OpenX (software) since most of the content belongs to the open-source software. I then created OpenX (company) for the Pasadena company, and OpenX is now a dab page. tedder (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This was not what was discussed. The suggestion Mike Linksvayer made was to change the focus of this article, not to make another. The software is still OpenX's main product, and there is little need for two articles. By the way, even if you insist on doing things this way, per WP:TWODABS there really is no need for a dab page. Why not have the company (or the software, I don't care) as the primary topic with a hatnote? --Muhandes (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't what was discussed, it was a bold change. The software belongs on the company article in summary style. I chose to dab both articles because I didn't want to get in a fuss about what is primary. I'd prefer the company to be primary, since that's what most reliable references discuss- thoughts? tedder (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. --Muhandes (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Was the backdoor ever fixed?

"In August 2013, a backdoor in the server software was detected that allows execution of PHP code by an attacker.[6]"

Merge with OpenX (company)

This software is not notable outside of OpenX (company), as previously noted by @Mike Linksvayer, @tedder and @Muhandes Therefore I propose a merger of this article into the OpenX (company) article. Thoughts? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)