Talk:Route (command)

This article was nominated for deletion on May 28, 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Ambiguous[edit]

I am not sure but it seems like this article describes two different things. It is highly unlikely that Microsoft took GPL licensed route from net-tools and made it integral part of Windows.--RamachandraTimoteus (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow: the article text and title says "route" is a command. There are different implementations of the command, but what they do is roughly the same. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there were some standard for route then yes. But there is not. Microsoft created their own independent route and net-tools is developing their own route without implementing any common upstream standard. I think the main reason for commands/software to share an article should be common history. Windows' route and net-tools' route don't share common history. They just share the name which of course is not the reason to share an article. Also they have different syntaxes ([1], [2]).

Check out ls and dir. Although they do the same thing they don't share an article.

As I can see this is a broader problem. whoami and echo (command) for example have the same problem.

I propose to leave this article for Windows'command, create separate article for net-tools and mention in each article not to confuse the two things.--RamachandraTimoteus (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think creating another article is a good idea. Of course there are different implementations of route, but Wikipedia is not a man page with a precise description. I take your point on ls and dir (command) but that's an anomaly possibly due to frequent mentions of ls and dir. There is not much activity on computing topics so anything you worked on may not get much comment for a while. However, I'm confident you would face long-term frustration once people noticed that there were two "route" articles and two "echo" articles, etc. There is not enough encyclopedic information to fill a single article let alone two when WP:NOTHOWTO is followed. I suppose a proposal could be discussed at WT:COMP but unless there is enough encyclopedic material any new articles will eventually be deleted or replaced with a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will try to focus on something more obvious. But I think you didn't get my point. These are not different implementations of route because there is nothing to implement. Your approach fits to ls, traceroute and ping because ls is a UNIX command and it can be implemented, and ping and traceroute are well established concepts (RFC 1739) which are also implementable.--RamachandraTimoteus (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]