Draft talk:Bluefish (software)

Untitled
Restored screenshot. "There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved...Screen shots from software products." Fair use guideline --Jnik 01:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bluefish for Mac OS ?
Hi.

The article claims that Bluefish works on Mac OS, but I'ven't found any binaries to Mac OS. I know that the official page says it works on Mac OS, but shound't we check it for ourselves ? --OsvaldoGago 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/screenshots/mac_bookmarks.png &brvbar; Reisio 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The website does not list Mac OS X (technically a POSIX) as having an official port. If the code builds on that system, that's one thing; whether it's actually available to the layman on that system is another. --Jtgibson (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Other operating systems
The Bluefish editor doesn't include any compiled binaries for Windows. The project team is stating that they'd like to produce a native Win32 port, but that they require the assistance of Win32 programmers. In general, most people (particularly most Wikipedia readers!) will not be able to invest the time necessary to port to another operating system, and most Wikipedia users who use Windows (i.e., the majority) would be misled by the statement that the editor supports Windows via Cygwin.

The website itself says that the editor is for POSIX systems -- Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc. -- and doesn't list Mac OS X. I move that the Mac OS and Windows entries be removed from the list, at least until there are official or sanctioned ports on those operating systems. UNIX is also not a POSIX system (UNIX is what POSIX was made for -- UNIX itself is just a file system), so I find its inclusion a little suspect as well. I don't know about the OpenVMS port (or indeed much about OpenVMS at all) so I can't comment one way or another on that one, but the article seems to imply that it's not even a POSIX system!

In any case, the current stable build (http://bluefish.mrball.net/stable/ - 1.0.7) is available only for Linux-type operating systems. As such, I'm removing the other entries, but leaving the POSIX intact. --Jtgibson (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, the Win32 version homepage is here: http://code.google.com/p/bluefish-win/
 * and the latest download is here: http://code.google.com/p/bluefish-win/downloads/list
 * It requires GTK+2, but will supposedly download it if not already present.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bluefish (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620182148/http://usalug.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5302 to http://usalug.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5302

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Preview discrepancy
When previewing this Wikipedia page from another page, the first sentence says:

redfish is ok its mid ebsite development.

Edit: I believe this is some sort of prankster or someone who really doesn't like Bluefish. This is spam. Imclevor (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources are now from the 'list of reliable sources' provided by the Free and open source software task force
I've changed some and added many new references from the sources that are listed in the List of reliable sources from the Free and open source software task force. Compared to most other free and open source software the number of reliable references is quite good now, and I hope good enough for submission. BlauweVis (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Compared to other editors, the quality is now well above average
I compared the quality of the article to comparable editors (as in lightweight general purpose code editors) in List_of_HTML_editors and List_of_text_editors. In my humble opinion the quality is better than Arachnophilia, Coda_(web_development_software), BBEdit, SciTE, Sublime_Text, UltraEdit, Geany, Gedit. The quality is on par with Atom_(text_editor), Kate_(text_editor). The only editor article that is really a lot better is Notepad%2B%2B. So I think the draft is ready to submit. Please let me know if you think otherwise. BlauweVis (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)