Talk:Seagate Technology/Archives/2015

Seagate founding/startup/incorporation

@Tom94022: I'd certainly consider the actual prospectus to be a more authoritative document than Seagate's website (which says 1979). Do you know of one online, or have access to an actual hardcopy from back then? In any event, the lead and second section, Founding as Shugart Technology, should have the same date. Rwessel (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I quoted from page 4 of an actual hardcopy of the Sept 30, 1981 prospectus in my possession. Agree that the dates should be the same and will make them so. Tom94022 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

BackBlaze

The quoted article itself warns against unfair generalizations of their results. The models are not the most recent, nor not the most sold currently and the results come from one particular environment, not necessarily benign. IMO placing this material in the article, particularly in the lede, gives it undue weight. If we added enough caveats, one study, by one company of a limited sample in a proprietary environment ... would then not add anything of substance to the article, so I recommend we leave it out. Tom94022 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that it violates WP:UNDUE, and it is also misrepresentative of how the drives would perform in general consumer use; they are using drives in an application that they are simply not designed to cope with, and therefore their results are not accurate or representative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Even if it might go somewhere in the article if it were better supported, it's not lede-worthy; Seagate isn't defined by this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree - this doesn't belong in the lead. Rwessel (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Fifth, or whatever. Original link is here, btw... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BackBlaze Incident

I would like to add BackBlaze incident in this article as it have attracted lots of interest about quality of hard drives and lots of medias published those reports. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 22:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• No. It's WP:UNDUE, and it's based on a test that is widely regarded as being non-representative. Stop this anti-Seagate crusade please. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

How will it make WP:UNDUE when it is subjected to massive attraction and there are reliable sources supporting the incident. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 22:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because the BackBlaze test is not representative of what the drives are intended for. If a road car proves to be unreliable during an endurance race, we wouldn't report that. Why is pretty much the only thing you're here on Wikipedia for this subject matter? Surely you have something better to do with your time than add negative (and fairly inaccurate/unhelpful at that) content about a company? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wiki is an encyclopedia, we are no means judging whether the drive is actually failed or not. We can collabarate the notable and reliable sourced incidents into wiki subject to WP:NOTCENSORED. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 23:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Except that no other independent company has got any data to back up Backblaze's claim that Seagate drives are unreliable, thus that would give WP:UNDUE weight to one tester who use methods that are well known to be dodgy at best. NOTCENSORED does not apply. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That might not be our problem. As a wiki, notable and reliable incidents can be included.WP:GNG We are including the news about the incident, not the BackBlaze test results.-  abhilashkrishn ^talk 23:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter how you spin it. Consensus right above is pretty clear; we're not going to include this. Go and find something else to do that isn't adding anti-Seagate material please. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• We might need expert opinion regarding this as the subjected inclusion is between my point WP:GNG and your point WP:UNDUE. I would like to see how WP:UNDUE could effect on this. Waiting for more conscious responses from other editors-  abhilashkrishn ^talk 23:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• How many more editors do you need? Look at the section right above. Not one agreed with including this material. Not one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• That was a discussion when the subject was on lead section. Current discussion is about to include it in any of the part although it might not be emphasized. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 23:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the above discussion covered both an initial lede insertion and a subsequent section insertion, both of which were found to be wp:undue. The industry produces 500 million HDDs a year, Backblaze measures 50,000 or so spanning several years and multiple product lines in an environment not supported by the manufacturers; it then reports a high degree of variability in apparent failure rate across all manufacturers, with some Seagate models having a high failure rate. Its a long way from there to conclude Seagate drives are more or less unreliable than other drives but that is what likely concluded by including Backblaze unless the section is well qualified, at which point it would become IMO wp:undue. If you,  abhilashkrishn  really think it can be made acceptable, why not propose a section here and see if u can get concensus in this talk section then it can be added. Tom94022 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

2010 to present section is lacking

Please add info on:

• First 2 TB HDDs released by Seagate - internal and external ones.
• Same for 3 TB, 4 TB, 5 TB, 6 TB+.
• Any similar info on laptop/2.5" HDDs.

(be it first ever such HDDs, or first ever done by Seagate, with the first being someone else) Thanks! Naki (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

While Naki is free to add such stuff, IMO most of the requested material is not notable and should not be added. Having said that, it also seems that the 2010 to present section probably needs updating for notable activity since 2013. Tom94022 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly wrong. Take a look at the WD page, similar and relevant/useful info exists there. Also, please could you not talk to me in 3rd person, as this is quite confusing. Naki (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

OTOH Seagate's own view of its history since 2013 is not particularly notable. Tom94022 (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Security vulnerability addition in lead

84.13.71.31 recently added a statement that "The security of Segate products is low as they are known to have backdoors." to the lead. I reverted that, and this was restored by 2.99.85.252. On the principle of BRD (or perhaps BRRD, in this case), I'm here.

The statement that "the security of Seagate’s products is low" is an opinion, and is not supported by the reference, which identifies a group of vulnerabilities to a group of products (some portion of Seagate's NAS devices), which has since been patched. Given the number of vulnerability of patches in devices with large amounts of software, this is not even (Wikipedia) notable in the context of those particular devices, much less of the entire company, and even then is unlikely to be supportable in the lead of the article. Rwessel (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

References

This has now been re-added in a new "Controversies" section. It's still unsupported by the reference. In addition, the Backblaze thing is suddenly back, and has been added to the new section as well. This begins to feel like someone is pushing a particular POV. Rwessel (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No real controversy

I agree with Rwessel that both Backblaze and Security are POV and/or undue and therefore am reverting the whole Controversies section. Tom94022 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

To make it clear,

• I agree with Rwessel that the so-called security issue is not supported by the reference. Seagate may have had a security issue on a very small percentage of its many products which are now fixed with a patch and therefore this issue is not notable and undue.
• The BackBlaze issue is well discussed above as both not notable and undue since the BackBlaze reports are based in a non representative sample in an unsupported environment.

Such material does not belong in Wikipedia without concensus! 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Can the backdoor issue be keep in the history section? or should it be hidden to prevent anyone knowing about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.71.88 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly a secret, even Seagate's web site talks about it ([1]), the question is whether or not it's notable enough (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) to include in the article. Consider Windows - dozens of security vulnerabilities are discovered each month. Microsoft produces dozens of patches each month to fix those. There have literally been many thousands of those security issues found and patched. Should we have a list of all those thousands of issues in the article on Microsoft? A really bad flaw might well rise to notability, but this looks pretty humdrum. As an example, consider the article on Toyota: three recalls are listed (ones of particular significance), out of the thousands that Toyota has issued - most for minor things. So no, unless this particular issue is somehow notable, it should not be included in this article. Rwessel (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not only is it a fixed humdrum problem, but NAS is a very very small part of Seagate's business so I find it hard to call the problem notable. Tom94022 (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)