Jump to content

Talk:CDisplay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CDisplayEX

[edit]

CDisplayEx Open source CDisplay clone. Where is the source if it is open source? --SeanJA 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try the "Browse SVN" link at the bottom of the left column on their SourceForge page. --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.164.247 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 August 2006

CDisplayEx is sponsored by trovi.com malware, is wikipedia right place to advertice them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.231.145 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CDisplayEx is not open source, here is the author saying so. http://forums.cdisplayex.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=528&sid=cae8e727eb87819e558914c2c26d0b30 Ihatevidyagames (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding undue weight, and unsourced opinion to the article. Forums don't count as reliable sources. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think both versions are inappropriate here, and I honestly don't see a single reason why the CDisplayEx section isn't removed altogether; that would solve the problem completely. The Lifehacker source would work towards supporting a standalone article, but it doesn't it should be mentioned here. - Aoidh (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link in question is the developer of CDisplayEx saying it's not open source. Ihatevidyagames (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't make it a reliable source. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not a reliable source? It meets the criteria of WP:V and specifically WP:ABOUTSELF, so yes it is a reliable source for the claim that the software is not/no longer open source. While it might be argued that as a forum it may be less reliable since there's no 100% certainty that the poster is the author of the software, this verifies the statement and is without question a reliable source for that claim. It's not like saying that it's closed source is unduly self-serving so it's hardly inappropriate to remove the open-source description if it isn't open source. - Aoidh (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CDisplayEX installs malware such as Trovi along with the reader. Referencing it on the CDisplay page without warning of the PUPs/trojans/hijackers bundled in it gives it a legitimacy that fools people into trusting it is harmless. Please remove it or notate the malware. Chitori (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that can verify this claim? - Aoidh (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fell victim to it myself last night, in fact, and had a hell of a time cleaning my computer. I downloaded it only after seeing it listed on Wikipedia without any mention of malware. Here is the page where you can download it yourself, but have AdwCleaner, Malwarebytes, and Junk Removal Tool ready! http://www.cdisplayex.com/ Chitori (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source that verifies that the software is bundled with malware? - Aoidh (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely to find a reliable secondary source that attests to the malware due to CDisplayEx's small presence (small enough to be denied its own wiki page). For a program to be too small to have its adware and hijackers widely decried in publications is not a good reason to give it credibility on Wikipedia.

Here is what I did find, reliable or unreliable as they may seem:

Chitori (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects I will remove the section about CDisplayEX on the CDisplay page. Chitori (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object. A single sentence reference to the application is all that's necessary. It's a valid addition, but no more than that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't even think it's a "valid addition". I don't think it belongs on this page at all, but if it's going to be here I don't see sources warranting calling it "malware" (even if it's included, adware is not necessarily malware). - Aoidh (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki page seems to imply it would be classified as malware, but I would be fine with editing the line to note the adware if it's a problem to take out the section altogether. Is the lifehacker article I linked above not considered a reliable source? Chitori (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is an important distinction here. CDisplayEX has been accused of containing malware, but that does not defacto make it malware itself. CDisplayex is a comic book reader which supposedly contains additional programs in its installer - which a user has the option of disabling, but as most users don't bother to read or pay attention to what they click when they install software, it gets installed. The problem there is mostly pebcak.
Note that there are plenty of forums bemoaning the users own failings in installing software, but no reliable sources to confirm this accusation yet.
CDisplayEx is included as a comment because the CDisplayEX page itself states that it is based on the original CDisplay, and the source here makes little distinction between the two applications, bunching them both together in review. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you consider your source to be reliable and disregard mine when they are the exact same source: from same website, the same author, and the same article: http://lifehacker.com/5858906/five-best-desktop-comic-book-readers Only my link has an updated notation regarding the "crapware", possibly because your link was to the Australian version of the site. Chitori (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few things: per WP:DUE, it's not really appropriate to give that much focus to a negative point mentioned very briefly in passing in the source you gave. The source certainly doesn't focus half of its text on this aspect, the article shouldn't either. Also the source uses the term crapware, not adware. I'm not saying that's the right term, but I am saying that the source doesn't support the term "adware". - Aoidh (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this sourcecount, although it is an Indonesian site? This source does focus on the adware and how to avoid it. Sorry if I'm pushing the subject too much and doing things incorrectly, I'm new to this stuff. Chitori (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not receive a response to the viability of my last source, so I am drawing my own conclusion from Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. Would this be sufficient to warrant editing the page? Chitori (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that is a reliable source, but regardless it's the same issue, the mention of CDisplayEx is one sentence. The source you noted does mention a toolbar and unselecting it, but for how little is mentioned in this article, it doesn't warrant half the mention to be about "adware" when sources don't. - Aoidh (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why CDisplayEx should be mentioned at all. CDisplayEx is not an official successor of CDisplay. It is not even the same software - it is a comletely different and new written software. And it is not "rewritten", as the author of CDisplayEx says. The source code for the original CDisplay has never been released. CDisplayEx is not affiliated in any way with the original software or its author. It just (mis)uses a very similar variation of the name of the "original" software. I (personally) would remove the link, which would finally solve the entire problem of the separate section and the malware notice. But that's just a suggestion. --78.52.100.164 (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually bothered to read the article (or pay attention to datestamps) you'd see that CDisplayEx and Malware aren't mentioned in the article anymore, having been removed by this edit on August 2nd 2014 - just over 2 years ago. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayton v Dayton

[edit]

Isn't it David Ayton not David Dayton? According to cdisplay.net its David Ayton. I'll change it, incase its incorrect just change it back. User:Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.121.125 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 September 2006

David Ayton is correct. TheManxome (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

The page states that the original author is no longer actively updating the software, but I see no indication of this anywhere on the net. His web page has a release as of Nov, 2006 which wasn't that long ago. Can anyone cite that information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanriot (talk • contribs) 00:03, 24 February 2007

Latest version is 1.8 released 2004 April. Do you have some other information? 213.197.139.68 —Preceding comment was added at 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current website (http://www.cdisplay.me/) states that they believe that David Ayton died in 2003, which is why the software has not been updated since. Mrstonky (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an advertisement?

[edit]

This article seems pretty NPOV to me. The software is out of date and no longer maintained in any case. Was CDisplay the first program to have all those features? It certainly set the standard but if someone could find a reference... TheManxome (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After removing a few more peacock phrases I've de-tagged it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

[edit]

I am Brazilian, and began writing articles for portuguese Wikipedia. My interest area is e-Comics (digital comics), which is most uncovered there.

The portuguese Wikipedia rules states there is no problem on translating articles from other languages (english Wikipedia, for example). But I wouldn't do that without asking first. It might be "authorized" but, without asking, I feel it unpolite.

Why translating and not simply writing from scratch? This text is very clean. Writing a new one could introduce some of the problems you guys and girls here already cleaned up.

If possible, please reply to my talk.

Clayton.Aguiar (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial 1.85.1 Update

[edit]

Why no mention of the unofficial CDisplay 1.85.1 update, found at http://www.cdisplay.net/ ? Some of us die-hards consider this to be 'complete', and not requiring further updates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanriot (talk • contribs) 05:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead webpage

[edit]

Seems the link to David's CDisplay page is dead. Damn. People wanting downloads'll be screwed for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.111.246 (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*, yea i googled it, first few links are to some sites i find kinda sketchy. -noob1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.32.144 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only his personal website, the name reservation for the application's website [[1]] has expired in July this year, too. Just a blunder or EOService for CDisplay?85.182.6.130 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: http://web.archive.org/web/20071011001044/http://www.geocities.com/davidayton/CDisplay --DBN (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is there some reason the link to the archived website keeps getting reverted when I change it to the correct website url? it is currently set to www.oocities.com rather than www.geocities.com. I tried changing it but it keeps being reverted to the wrong URL and the bot cites that the correct url violates wikipedia's linking rules for some strange reason. can anyone clarify that? Careyt (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historically important

[edit]

CDisplay pretty much set the standard for comic book readers. It was the first that supported archives, western/asian page flip, bookmarking, yellow removing and full screen, and was created solely for reading comics. Too bad David Ayton died so young. -- 93.106.108.127 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Do we have any reference for his death? --Pmsyyz (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Quenneville who runs techknight.com as well as cdisplay.me and has hosted the CDisplay installer since July 2003, states that as far as he's aware, David died around the end of 2003 or early 2004.

CDDisplayEx commentary

[edit]

Please discuss here why you think it's improtant to add that the CDdisplayEx installer contains adware?

I can't see why this is important. Thousands of applications include adware, and along with CDdisplaex offer the option of refusing to install it. Perhaps if CDdisplayEx had its own page where it could be covered in more detail then a mention would be warranted - althoguh even then I doubt it - but given that the coverage is minimal, it's undue weight to mention it in this article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mini-war over the insertion/removal of the extended CDisplayEx information.

Let's talk about it - I agree with the original IP editor that although a related program in that it allows you to read Comic books, it's only based on the features of CDisplay, and shares nothing else in common with it.

For a different program to have an infobox seems inaccurate and undue weight for the application. I suggest that CDisplayEx gets its own page instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the CDisplayEx infobox includes the name "Henri Gourvest" and that an involved editor has the username "Hgourvest". This seems a blatant wp:coi conflict of interest to me, and Hgourvest should remove himself form the discussion (before it even starts). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important because the malware in the CDisplayEX installer includes browser hijackers that are malicious, tenacious and very hard to remove. Noting CDisplayEX as a viable option with "additional features" encourages unwary users to download it and thus get infected. I think it would be best to remove the CDisplayEX section altogether, but if it must be mentioned there should definitely be a mention of the malware. Chitori (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the reply to your first comment above. - Aoidh (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CDisplay

[edit]

What is wrond on the CDisplay article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgourvest (talk • contribs)

To summarise:
  • You appear to be the author of the application - that's a conflict of interest, and suggests a lack of NPOV
  • They are not the same application, and should not be on the same page
  • Why don't you create a page for your application instead? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am the author of CDisplayEx, it only mean I know what I am talking about. CDisplayEx is a continuation of CDisplay, there is no reason to separate, and create another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgourvest (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, CDisplayEx cannot be a continuation of CDisplay, since it is a completely different software. That's like writing your own software and claiming that it is a continuation of Microsoft Word or something. You got no permission from the author of CDisplay, nor did you used any of its source code (since it has never been released). CDisplayEx is in no way an official successor of CDisplay in whichever way. You just use a very similar name (for obvious reasons...) for a completely different software, which has absolutely nothing to do with CDisplay. That's all. --78.52.100.164 (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above conversation moved from my talk page to here, as it has more relevance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


All the above does is to confirm that you shouldn't be editing the article as you are the author of the work in question. Please clarify why CDisplayEx needs such detail in an article about a different (albeit similar) program.
I actually went to create the page CDisplayEx for you - but when I went there I noted that it had already been created - and deleted on 8 May 2010. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to speak as anyone.
If you can recreate the old article I'd love to update it.
In the meantime you shouldn't delete informations on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgourvest (talk • contribs) 11:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't given any arguments for the inclusion of all the extra detail surrounding CDisplayEx.
As mentioned elsewhere, nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia. The priviledge to edit is based on behaviour, and an adherence to the rules. I think I'll be taking this to ANI, as I'm unfamiliar with COI editing, the recreation of deleted articles, and what to do with an editor who refuses to follow wp:brd. I cannot revert you again as I'm at wp:3rr - or can I - because your edits are disruptive as you are refusing to follow process? Guidance is required. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref to the page, from Lifehacker, that mentions both applications. Lemme know your opinion on this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CDisplayEx is no more open source. It appear I have no more the right to contribute to this article, so I let you check my assertion and make necessary changes.Hgourvest (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me with a reliable source that states CDX is no longer open source? Then I might consider changing it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here: [2], in the description there is "CDisplayEx is a closed source software". And source code is not available anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgourvest (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to review the guidance on WP:SPS, especially when the SPS says "Last Update: 15 minutes ago" Toddst1 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I am the author of the program, and the only reliable source of information on the subject. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgourvest (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is there a third party source? Like Lifehacker mentioned yours earlier? That, I can accept. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I prefer to leave this kafkian atmosphere, good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgourvest (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It ain't our fault if advertising isn't allowed here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I received the exact same treatment as you for arguing against you, I'd be tempted to agree that it does seem somewhat Kafkaesque, however, the point is valid; if the only source of the information is coming from the author of the application in question, then it is (unfortunately) unlikely to be notable enough for its own page, and should make do with a couple of lines in a "parent" article. Given the lack of secondary or tertiary sources it would be inappropriate to add any more detail apart from what is easily (and unarguably) available from the primary source - which is that such a program exists, and what it does - it's called CDisplayEx, and is a Comic book reader.
I say all this with a heavy heart, because I actually use CDisplayEx comprehensively at home to read comics (a reason I edited the page in the first place) and think it's excellent, (although I do have a couple of pointers to improve it - which I am quite happy to discuss on your talk page if you're interested,) however my own personal experiences with it are no more notable nor reliable than yours in this context, so although I would personally like to see a page for CDisplayEx, I'm not sure it's notable enough.
In his enthusiasm to block and warn both HGourvest and myself Todd closed the discussion I opened, thus preventing any other editors from contributing and offering help on re-creating deleted pages, so I'm still no wiser as to procedure for that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What did I do that was Kafkaesque? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Hgourvest, but I'm referring to the hoops that I jumped through earlier. I tried to keep and enforce wikipedia guidelines, and was blocked for it. I was reminded of a previous occasion when I reported an editor for edit-warring, only to be told that they hadn't transgressed 3RR, so it wasn't an edit war. In that case 3RR hadn't been transgressed because at the first instance of reversion I'd stopped the editing myself and reported them. No action was taken, and wrong version is still in place, IIRC. In this case, where I stepped up and tried to enforce BRD I was blocked for edit warring myself. Hardly an incentive to uphold Wiki values. Moroever, in the request I placed asking for assistance on the topic the blocking editor closed the discussion meaning that nobody else could comment, and offer the help I that I required, The result is that I was blocked (as was Hgourvest) yet we were offered no help or advice on how to resolve the situation vis a vis COI and deleted pages, apart from "go back to the talk page".
I noted that a day or so later, the blocking editor himself had an ANI raised against him for misplaced blocks - not ours - and looking through it, it was hard to see any difference between the behaviour of HGourvest and myself, and the editors in the ANI - one of which was not blocked. And let's not forget the chilling effect/threat post on my talk page about outing, despite it clearly being an unintentional issue on both parts.
I know Hgourvest has said he's done with this, but I'm going to put a talkback on his page, as he may be interested tangentially in my thoughts and comments. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CDisplayEx section needs to go.

[edit]

It's irresponsible for us to give software which is bundled with browser hijacking malware a plug in the article. There is no doubt that this article has been responsible for actual instances of malware being installed on peoples' computers. This is unacceptable.


I nearly had the same experience as User:Chitori.

Although it is manifestly obvious to anyone who downloads the application that it contains browser hijackers, it has been pointed out that we don't actually have a reliable/verifiable source saying so. Therefore, I suggest that the section be removed altogether. If the section is to be restored, it's up to the restorer to find a source for the warning and add it. The onus is on them. Advertising malware bundles with no warning will not stand on Wikipedia. .froth. (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, look at this screenshot of the installer. Can you guess how to decline the installation of this browser hijacker? What do you click? This is downright scummy. .froth. (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but reverted. We are digressing from the key point of Wikipedia - in this case it is to point out a similar application that is based on the original application. The whole issue of whether it contains malware, crapware, or any kind of ware is not the responsibility or focus of Wikipedia. Furthermore, removing an entry based purely on the implied inclusion of malware is not warranted. The just cause for removal is "is the entry relevant to the article" - and in this case it patently is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I just downloaded CDisplayEx and installed it on my machine. I didn't get the above screenshot, but I did get an offer to install "Search Protect", which I declined using the highly visible "Decline" button, and then an offer to install the Yahoo toolbar. I clicked on custom installation, and deselected all three options, which then even gave me a helpful little message saying "by deselecting all options no changes will be made to your computer." This is all straight forward simple stuff - but still not Wikipedia's responsibility. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but reverted. I disagree, and from my point of view it cannot be suffered that the reference remain online while we discuss the issue over the course of 6 more months. Additionally, I disagree that CDisplayEx is relevant enough to the subject to merit a section in the article. It doesn't appear to share any source code with CDisplay, and is radically different. It seems to me that CDisplayEx is just trying to cash in on the name recognition of CDisplay, and isn't actually relevant at all. .froth. (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editwarring. WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted, now discuss. "from my point of view" is not a valid reason for removal. CDisplayEx meets the criteria for inclusion in that a reliable source bundles the two together, and that the primary source of the CDisplayEx homepage specifically states that CDisplayEx is a continuation of CDisplay. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it does meet "the criteria for inclusion". It's mentioned in a single article that it's related to CDisplay, which would be worth mentioning in a CDisplayEx article, but no such article exists (because the software isn't notable enough). If it's just this one source, I don't really see a need to mention this software here at all, and what the CDisplayEx website says on this matter is irrelevant to that. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If mentioning that CDisplay is related to CDisplayEx in a (theoretical) CDisplayEx article is sufficient notability, then surely mentioning that CDisplayEx is related to CDisplay in the CDisplay is equally valid? Whether it's "just one source" or not - it is a sourced comment. There is also a primary source - the CDisplayEx page itself, which also states that CDisplayEx owes its existence to CDisplay. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for a statement of fact: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". CDisplayEx is based on CDisplay, and despite claims above, it is not "radically different", apart from the code, I suppose. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, mentioning it isn't "sufficient notability", I'm not sure what you mean by that, and what CDisplayEx's website says doesnt mean it needs to be parrotted on Wikipedia, and doesn't add weight to that comment. A phone book entry is a primary source, that doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia just because it can be verified. Your argument would make sense for mentioning CDisplay on an article about CDisplayEx, but that doesn't make the reverse true. If there aren't any other sources that would warrant mentioning CDisplayEx, I think it's long past time to remove it from this article. A little blip in a LifeHacker article doesn't warrant mentioning this in an article about CDisplay. - Aoidh (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call ranking both CDisplay & CdisplayEx both together as the number 1 comic book reader "a little blip". Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's all you're going off of to suggest that it belongs here, consensus for that seems to be against inclusion so I've removed the mention of the other software until sources can justify the mention here. This article is about CDisplay, not a third-party software based on it, and if it's just the one source that can justify mentioning CDisplayEx, I think there needs to be some other indication that it belongs, something else. - Aoidh (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not all I'm bringing to the table:
  • [3] also states the link between the two pieces of software
  • [4] and so does this download page.
  • [5] and here again.
  • [6] and again.
All the above links state that there is a correlation between the two packages - ie that CDisplayEx is a continuation of CDisplay. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. These sources show that CDisplay would be worth mentioning on a CDisplayEx article, but not the other way around. Download mirrors and a blog aren't much by the way of independent reliable sources and don't support mentioning this software on this article. Plenty of software is based on other software, that doesn't mean the derivatives need to be mentioned in the parent software's article if the derivative software isn't even notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Software is removed almost daily from List of PDF software for that very reason, there's no reason CDisplayEx should be a special exception. - Aoidh (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not missing the point. I'm not talking about PDF software, I'm talking about a very specific instance of two programs where one owes its life to another. The point I am missing is your continual insistence that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. Given that CDisplay is no longer in development, and the reins have (posthumously) been handed over to CDisplayEx thus making the two inextricably linked, this makes the mention valid.
If you check previous discussions you will also see that while it was agreed that CDisplayEx doesn't (yet) warrant its own page the compromise was to instead mention it as a section, which is what I advocate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested it was PDF software, I said that similar software is held to a certain standard, and this software is not an exception to that, nor should it be. Given that CDisplay's website still hosts the code for CDisplay and makes no mention of CDisplayEx at all, it is certainly not a matter of CDisplayEx being any official continuation of the original, but rather a derivative that is only linked to the prior software in that it took that code and built upon it; that's it. CDisplay is critical to CDisplayEx, that does not make the reverse true. I certainly don't see any consensus that mentioning it in a section here was a preferred course of action. - Aoidh (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Given that CDisplay's website still hosts the code for CDisplay and makes no mention of CDisplayEx at all, it is certainly not a matter of CDisplayEx being any official continuation of the original, but rather a derivative that is only linked to the prior software in that it took that code and built upon it; that's it."
The bold parts in the quote above are all wrong. Let's get something clear once and for all - CDisplay's source code was never made available by David Ayton, so it is simply not possible for CDisplayEx to be based on that code. CDisplay always has been closed-source. The CDisplayEx developer simply recreated the original app as far as possible (still not 100% though) and then added features to it, hence the piggybacking on CDisplay's name (and fame). CDisplayEx used to be open-source initially, but that's no longer the case. Now that's clear, I see no need for CDisplayEx to be mentioned in this article, so the current iteration seems just fine to me and should be left as-is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.138.7 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience (and no, I can't provide independent references) is that at least the current windows 64bit version of this software (1.10.28) re-hijacks browsers (at least Firefox and IE) every time it's run, EVEN IF you deselect the option to install additional packages with the software. Personally, I'm in favour of not promoting it here, but I'm not interested enough to get into an argument about it. --22:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otus scops (talk • contribs)

CDisplay Limitations

[edit]

I can appreciate that the Limitations section was probably removed because it violated WP:NOR, but just want to leave a note here linking to it because any user of the app can verify that what was stated in the section was 100% true even if there aren't any sources for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.57.10.233 (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to deleted section

[edit]

CDislayEx is still under development, with an current, March 2018, attempt at beta for an Android app, per the video on CDisplayEx's YouTube page. Since there is a re-direct to a currently deleted section, at the very least inform the reader with an {{about}} to explain the situation. WurmWoodeT 16:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what new types of malware have they "updated" it with now? 98.30.43.66 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CDisplay&oldid=1200718674"