Talk:TAO (software)

Old 2005 comments

This article survived a vote for deletion which can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAO (software)

If this is not an advertisement, why does it read like a press release? --24.44.37.202 08:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not an advertisement. TAO is open source, just a first start description page what is TAO and how it relates to other projects.

Fair enough. If I am wrong then I apologize. However, if you find yourself using the word “we” or “I” then you probably shouldn’t be writing the article, because it is a conflict of interest. --24.44.37.202 08:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will update the page

This article totally reads like a press release. My company uses ACE and TAO in our software, and I think both are great pieces of software, but frankly this article's tone of voice is totally NPOV and should probably get the disclaimer doodad at the top. --HeXetic 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. One alternative point of view that is missing is a set of criticisms and drawbacks of TAO. For example, TAO relies on remote method invocation (RMI) a.k.a. remote procedure calls (RPC), so that subroutine invocation is the primary abstraction. (An alternative is to not bury the interprocessor message within IIOP but rather allow the message itself to be visible within the application domain.) RMI/RPC suspends the caller's thread, such as on another processor than the servant object resides on. Suspending the caller when on another processor erodes concurrency in a (nonSMP) multi-processor system. —optikos 13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that the authors of successful Open Source projects tend to make oodles of money consulting to their users, so saying that "TAO is open source" is not proof that its press release is not an advertisement." --Phlip (proud TAO user and author of the webcomic version of The Frogs;)

I think this requires a major re-writing. I would delete the 'Disadvantages' section as it is more appropriate to the general CORBA article. Sted 09:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Still needs tons of work. Perhaps assertions by Wikipedia editors were all that was needed in 2005, but the guidelines now are that to survive a notability challenge, there needs to be some evidence of deep coverage in an independent source (not just promotion by the developers). And the rule is "neutral language" which clearly this is not. It does not matter if it is open source or cost a billion dollars a copy, promotion is promotion. Especially if not cited, it needs to go away. W Nowicki (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)