Talk:Preboot Execution Environment/Archive 1

LAN booting
Maybe someone can create an article about LAN booting in general? All modern computers support it, but there is little information about this thing on the internet. thanks, --Abdull 21:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * LAN booting in general...it's longer than you'd suspect (though there certaintly are longer articles on here), however, I don't think that this is the place for a step-by-step howto. However, Nirkus and I maintain a much smaller wiki dedicated to this...please see (same link at the bottom of the article) for more info. ScytheBlade1 01:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

NIC Only?
" ..... is an environment to boot computers using a network interface card"

Is it correct that a motherboard with on-board network interface circuitry (i.e. most mobos) can do a boot-from-lan without requiring a network interface card?

If so, then perhaps we could state this in the introduction. Rbowman (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean an integrated Network Interface Card ? same same DGerman (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is correct - you just need pxe-enabled network circuitry. 199.18.139.222 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing redundant clarification
The following clarification sounds redundant to me, so I'm removing it: The term PXE client only refers to the role that the machine takes in the PXE boot process. A PXE client can be a server, desktop, laptop or any other machine that is equipped with PXE boot code. Rationele: this holds for any "client", and isn't appropriate here any more than it would be on the HTTP page. 145.120.14.169 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

move it
ok... I cannot move this article... so would anyone move it to Preboot Execution Environment and link PXE to it, please!
 * I moved it for you.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanx! Nirkus

Source soliciting
The situation on this talk page is covered in WP:SPAM:"
 * Is the solicitation being made anonymously through the use of a template or Category? ❌ (anonymous WP:SPA IP editor ✅)
 * Is the solicitation being duplicated across many articles at the same time, particularly when the articles relate to different topics? ❌ (EXT added to other articles ✅ Null session  Network booting  Trivial File Transfer Protocol  Preboot Execution Environment repeatedly since February)
 * Has there been no discussion (of a specific and substantive nature) on why the source should be used in each article? ✅ (❌ until now on this page)
 * Is the source controversial, such as being non-peer reviewed, outdated or polemic (see Reliable sources)? ✅ (primary, non-RS, m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/vercot.com)
 * Is the source a commercial one? ✅ http://www.vercot.com/~serva/download.html commercial paid product, closed-source (or feature limited, time limited, freeware, limited to personal non-commercial use). This statement "Serva, their website and their information is free." is not completely correct."

Preboot Execution Environment is the topic. WP:OFFTOPIC posts on the talk page may be deleted per WP:TPO "rants". We have no obligation to list any commercial products that implement the standard per WP:EXT WP:SPAM / WP:LINKSPAM WP:ELNO 13. 14. (or even if mentioned in the article per 19.) and WP:ADV. When WP:ADVOCACY by an WP:SPA IP now source soliciting, even less so. That separate topic may, in fact, be notable itself, and Matthiaspaul and I have encouraged creating the article. Multiple EXT has been removed from here per WP:ELNO 4. , WP:ELPOINTS 4. and m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/vercot.com (edit list includes restoring of other internal or EXT removed by the editor):
 * didnt remove
 * By Billinghurst Matthiaspaul Widefox ‎Eidab ( tidied not removed)

Just noticed these WP:SPA IPs User:82.159.104.182, User:82.159.106.106 and User:83.40.140.90 had previously been removing see also/EXT and replacing with this EXT, so this has gone on longer that February, in the same style. Also vandals blanked in frustration/or message to others? User:Joe ButtChin User:Herpderpa (these two are clearly related to each other - one blocked, one not blocked)

Per WP:LINKSPAM "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Widefox ; talk 12:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been reading this "Serva thing" for a long time, and I just have to comment, although it's not my business... Why there hasn't been written a Serva article?  If it's such a great product &mdash; and it seems like something quite usable &mdash; then it deserves an article.  Having an article, it can be linked within "See also"...  As simple as that.  What's the big deal?  Writing an article takes some time?  I know, BTDT. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, in particular since the IP has repeatedly claimed to be so knowledgable about it. Instead, he spent all his time to force these vercot links into the PXE article.
 * Actually, Widefox and myself have repeatedly proposed that an article about SERVA should be written as well (whereby notability would also have to be established), we even offered to help out as far as time allows. It isn't in my immediate scope of interest, therefore I won't start an article about it myself, though.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Ditto for me. I'm still willing to help, and can even translate the German (c't source) if I had the source (a while since I bought it). Creating an account and using WP:AfC for support would be a good way forward. I think Serva would be the title (as used in c't). Widefox ; talk 11:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have it archived (but no time for translations right now). In either case, we would have it available if needed for citations. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Following discussion User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2013/October, do others consider this talk of Serva as WP:OFFTOPIC on this talk page? Does anyone object to all sources and discussion of Serva being collapsed per WP:TPO? Widefox ; talk 14:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a lot of discussion regarding Serva, and compacting it would a good thing. Though, in my humble opinion there should be a summary provided on this talk page. -- Dsimic (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

1) WP:SPAM: also mentions what you enumerate are just "some guidelines"

2) You cannot consider Spam offering a 100% matching reference in just 4 wikipedia pages. Spam handles much bigger figures.

3)The discussion here about Serva was vandalized by Widefox when erasing independent Serva references. Fortunately there was an editor reverting Widefox disruptive editing on this page.

4) You guys are making the source controversial

5) Serva has a non-expiring license version ("non-supporter") 100% Free; the 2 first download links on the quoted download page are for the Free version.

Widefox you have been corrected here by an editor restoring your deletions I encourage you to stop vandalizing this page.

And now I'd like to rise again my unanswered questioning about the systematic inclusion of ERPXE, COBBLER and EL TORITO in this page. Why are those projects included in this page?

Let's see if finally we can talk some real PXE here...

213.37.84.214 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — 213.37.84.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The (building) consensus above seems to be that the discussion of this commercial software is long, and it can't be added here either as an EXT or SEE ALSO for reasons given above. In theory it could be added to the article body or more practically (the preferred option above) is to create an article. As the topic of this talk page is PXE (not any particular commercial PXE or list of commercial products - WP is WP:NOT a directory or promo site), WP:WEIGHT would need to be considered if incorporating here. Also, editors are explicitly not meant to create content where they have a WP:COI as indicated by SPAMbot and WP:SPA editing. Continued source soliciting, WP:SPAM, WP:SELFPROMOTE and business promotion are not welcome. Continuing to repeat without listening to the consensus above may disrupt (leading to a block and/or this talk page being protected). Talk page offtopic posts (which this may or may not be considered as) WP:TPO or WP:OFFTOPIC SPAM and business promotion may be removed from anywhere on WP. Removing spam in not considered vandalism, in fact the opposite. In fairness to User:NE_Ent that you refer to -see User_talk:NE_Ent/Archive/2013/October where I justified collapsing this commercial SPAM per guideline/policy and asked for participation here from them. I have setup archive for this page will leave for now the discussion above, but at any time this may be collapsed, removed and/or archived. We all want to know - why not create an article? Widefox ; talk 13:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm also wondering why nobody writes an article? So many words have been spent by the Serva proponents on this talk page &mdash; and all those words would be enough for at least one really good article. -- Dsimic (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "proponent", yes. Widefox ; talk 23:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Widefox there is not consensus on your sayings; you have been recently edited when restoring the references you deleted of the software that you are now shamelessly attacking. What you are calling commercial is free to download. Widefox you are definetely not telling the truth here.

@ Dsimic this is not a page about Serva; this is a page about PXE but it seems no very many are able to talk about PXE here. Right Widefox ?

I repeat my proposal and I'm just waiting for this page being editable again; I will erase El Torito for not being related to PXE. I will Erase ERPXE for being a project non supported here even for a SINGLE independent source. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me, but I really don't understand why are you so hostile? Wikipedia has its own set of rules, and we all need to play according to them.  Also, could you please provide an insigh regarding why don't you go ahead and write a complete article on Serva, that's quite confusing?  I can assist if you need help there. -- Dsimic (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me tell you why; because there are people here that were attacking me for long time now and I'm getting tired of it.


 * I'm playing by Wikepedia rules then I hope Widefox can stop his rant and we can finally talk PXE in this page. Widefox talks about whatever but PXE.


 * You mention an article about Serva? Be my guest, go for it; I'm here just talking about PXE; it was never my intention writing an article about Serva.
 * 213.37.84.214 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize for poking into something that actually isn't my business, but why don't you create yourself an account here on Wikipedia, for the beginning? It's a bit strange you're contributing as just an IP address for quite a long time. -- Dsimic (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I really wonder why if Wikepedia allows me to contribute with an IP I have to register. So far in this page you guys are very good pointing out whatever but PXE stuff.

As I said before and considering there was not a single editor supporting the inclusion of El Torito nor ERPXE either I consider they have to be removed. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:213.37.84.214 per consensus here, these removals do not have consensus and have been reverted. You must aim to reach consensus first for these contested edits rather than imposing you will despite the consensus. I have reverted until consensus is reached. Widefox ; talk 23:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You do not have consensus here for restoring my removals. Where is the consensus for the El Torito inclusion?? where is the consensus for ERPXE inclussion; you couldn't even bring a single source supporting your "reverting". You cannot revert "just in case"; you can revert only if you have a supporting reason and you do not have it. I think you Widefox should stop vandalizing this page.213.37.84.214 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Source soliciting and disruption
For the reasons and consensus above, I will collapse the offtopic SPAM disruption above. Widefox ; talk 19:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

you do not have my consent for again erasing links that are not SPAM.

213.37.84.214 (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions on Linking
Considering:

1) External Links regarding copyrighted material

2) The ERPXE included external link points to a project/website that offers for download as part constituent of the project non freely distributable Microsoft copyrighted material.

The ERPXE link has to be removed from this PXE page.

Proof of concept;

ERPXE PXE boot of Windows PE.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winpe/winpe3-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "bt.exe" which is in fact the Microsoft "bootmgr.exe" File Version 6.0.6000.16386.

The file is signed by Microsoft and the signature certificate is still embedded in its code.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

ERPXE PXE boot Windows XP recovery console

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winxp-recoveryconsole/winxp-recoveryconsole-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "r" which is in fact the Microsoft "setupldr.exe" File Version 5.2.3790.1830.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

ERPXE PXE boot Paragon 2011

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/paragon/paragon2011-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "bt.exe" which is in fact the Microsoft "bootmgr.exe" File Version 6.0.6000.16386.

The file is signed by Microsoft and the signature certificate is still embedded in its code.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

and many more...

If ERPXE wants to be a legal PXE tool it must not include/distribute third party copyrighted material without a proper license.

For all the above reasons the ERPXE External Link must be removed from this PXE page

213.37.84.214 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The ERPXE Project fixed all the issues mentioned above and is now a legal PXE tool. The copyrighted files were packaged by mistake and removed from all packages. http://erpxe.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=145 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.235.254 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I could think of a mistake if the files would've been included keeping their original names but unfortunately they have been purposely renamed before inclusion.


 * anyway ERPXE is still not a legal application


 * Proof of concept;
 * ERPXE PXE boot of Windows PE.
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winpe/winpe3-100.tar.gz/download
 * ERPXE PXE boot Paragon 2011
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/paragon/paragon2011-100.tar.gz/download
 * etc.


 * They all contain the file "boot.sdi" which is in fact the Microsoft "System Deployment Image" providing the ability to boot an embedded run-time image directly from random access memory (RAM). This file contains the BOOT BLOB which is in fact the boot program STARTROM.COM
 * This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.


 * I think these guys have serious problems when deciding what to pack before distribution; They just make too many mistakes.
 * 213.37.84.214 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-consent editing
User Widefox "systematically" cancels my editing deleting El Torito and ERPXE from this page and he restores them without a single supporting independent source. He claims having "consensus" from this page for doing so but HE DOES NOT.

I do not have banning power here; I think some editor should look after Widefox repeated behavior. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is all covered above. May I suggest seeking further opinions. Widefox ; talk 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing is covered above; I encourage you to read about the topic before deleting my editing. You cannot undo changes when you have not supporting reasons for doing so. I strongly encourage you to revert your last editing. Stop vandalizing this page 213.37.84.214 (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see consensus for those removals - others disagree with your assessment. That's why someone else has protected the article from this disruption and blocked you. Calling others vandals may not be an effective way of persuading them to reach consensus with you for your edits. All this is a repeat - see above and your talk page. Widefox ; talk 09:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What I do not see here is consent for you restoring a project like ERPXE which is warez based. You are violating WP rules on copyrighted material every time you restore the link to that project.213.37.84.214 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your efforts to make ERPXE better, but those files were already removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.228.231 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions on Linking
This Section has been posted 12 December 2013 (UTC) and then for some reason "erased" by Lowercase sigmabot III 12:17, 12 January 2014

Please DO NOT ERASE.

Considering:

1) External Links on linking regarding copyrighted material

2) The ERPXE included external link points to a project/website that offers for download as part constituent of the project non freely distributable Microsoft copyrighted material.

The ERPXE link has to be removed from this PXE page.

Proof of concept;

ERPXE PXE boot of Windows PE.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winpe/winpe3-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "bt.exe" which is in fact the Microsoft "bootmgr.exe" File Version 6.0.6000.16386.

The file is signed by Microsoft and the signature certificate is still embedded in its code.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

ERPXE PXE boot Windows XP recovery console

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winxp-recoveryconsole/winxp-recoveryconsole-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "r" which is in fact the Microsoft "setupldr.exe" File Version 5.2.3790.1830.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

ERPXE PXE boot Paragon 2011

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/paragon/paragon2011-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "bt.exe" which is in fact the Microsoft "bootmgr.exe" File Version 6.0.6000.16386.

The file is signed by Microsoft and the signature certificate is still embedded in its code.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

and many more...

If ERPXE wants to be a legal PXE tool it must not include/distribute third party copyrighted material without a proper license.

For all the above reasons the ERPXE External Link must be removed from this PXE page

213.37.84.214 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The ERPXE Project fixed all the issues mentioned above and is now a legal PXE tool. The copyrighted files were packaged by mistake and removed from all packages. http://erpxe.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=145 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.235.254 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I could think of a mistake if the files would've been included keeping their original names but unfortunately they have been purposely renamed before inclusion.


 * anyway ERPXE is still not a legal application


 * Proof of concept;
 * ERPXE PXE boot of Windows PE.
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winpe/winpe3-100.tar.gz/download
 * ERPXE PXE boot Paragon 2011
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/paragon/paragon2011-100.tar.gz/download
 * etc.


 * They all contain the file "boot.sdi" which is in fact the Microsoft "System Deployment Image" providing the ability to boot an embedded run-time image directly from random access memory (RAM). This file contains the BOOT BLOB which is in fact the boot program STARTROM.COM
 * This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.


 * I think these guys have serious problems when deciding what to pack before distribution; They just make too many mistakes.
 * 213.37.84.214 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

213.37.84.214 (talk)

Restrictions on Linking
This Section has been posted 12 December 2013 (UTC) and then for some reason "erased" by Lowercase sigmabot III 12:17, 12 January 2014 and 00:34, 22 July 2014‎

Please DO NOT ERASE.

Considering:

1) External Links on linking regarding copyrighted material

2) The ERPXE included external link points to a project/website that offers for download as part constituent of the project non freely distributable Microsoft copyrighted material.

The ERPXE link has to be removed from this PXE page.

Proof of concept;

ERPXE PXE boot of Windows PE.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winpe/winpe3-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "bt.exe" which is in fact the Microsoft "bootmgr.exe" File Version 6.0.6000.16386.

The file is signed by Microsoft and the signature certificate is still embedded in its code.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

ERPXE PXE boot Windows XP recovery console

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winxp-recoveryconsole/winxp-recoveryconsole-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "r" which is in fact the Microsoft "setupldr.exe" File Version 5.2.3790.1830.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

ERPXE PXE boot Paragon 2011

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/paragon/paragon2011-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "bt.exe" which is in fact the Microsoft "bootmgr.exe" File Version 6.0.6000.16386.

The file is signed by Microsoft and the signature certificate is still embedded in its code.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

and many more...

If ERPXE wants to be a legal PXE tool it must not include/distribute third party copyrighted material without a proper license.

For all the above reasons the ERPXE External Link must be removed from this PXE page

213.37.84.214 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The ERPXE Project fixed all the issues mentioned above and is now a legal PXE tool. The copyrighted files were packaged by mistake and removed from all packages. http://erpxe.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=145 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.235.254 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I could think of a mistake if the files would've been included keeping their original names but unfortunately they have been purposely renamed before inclusion.


 * anyway ERPXE is still not a legal application


 * Proof of concept;
 * ERPXE PXE boot of Windows PE.
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winpe/winpe3-100.tar.gz/download
 * ERPXE PXE boot Paragon 2011
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/paragon/paragon2011-100.tar.gz/download
 * etc.


 * They all contain the file "boot.sdi" which is in fact the Microsoft "System Deployment Image" providing the ability to boot an embedded run-time image directly from random access memory (RAM). This file contains the BOOT BLOB which is in fact the boot program STARTROM.COM
 * This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.


 * I think these guys have serious problems when deciding what to pack before distribution; They just make too many mistakes.
 * 213.37.84.214 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

213.37.84.214 (talk)

Restrictions on Linking
This Section has been posted 12 December 2013 (UTC) and then for some reason "erased" by Lowercase sigmabot III 12:17, 12 January 2014 and 00:34, 22 July 2014‎

Please DO NOT ERASE.

Considering:

1) External Links on linking regarding copyrighted material

2) The ERPXE included external link points to a project/website that offers for download as part constituent of the project non freely distributable Microsoft copyrighted material.

The ERPXE link has to be removed from this PXE page.

Proof of concept;

ERPXE PXE boot of Windows PE.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winpe/winpe3-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "bt.exe" which is in fact the Microsoft "bootmgr.exe" File Version 6.0.6000.16386.

The file is signed by Microsoft and the signature certificate is still embedded in its code.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

ERPXE PXE boot Windows XP recovery console

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winxp-recoveryconsole/winxp-recoveryconsole-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "r" which is in fact the Microsoft "setupldr.exe" File Version 5.2.3790.1830.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

ERPXE PXE boot Paragon 2011

http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/paragon/paragon2011-100.tar.gz/download

It contains the file "bt.exe" which is in fact the Microsoft "bootmgr.exe" File Version 6.0.6000.16386.

The file is signed by Microsoft and the signature certificate is still embedded in its code.

This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.

and many more...

If ERPXE wants to be a legal PXE tool it must not include/distribute third party copyrighted material without a proper license.

For all the above reasons the ERPXE External Link must be removed from this PXE page

213.37.84.214 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The ERPXE Project fixed all the issues mentioned above and is now a legal PXE tool. The copyrighted files were packaged by mistake and removed from all packages. http://erpxe.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=145 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.235.254 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I could think of a mistake if the files would've been included keeping their original names but unfortunately they have been purposely renamed before inclusion.


 * anyway ERPXE is still not a legal application


 * Proof of concept;
 * ERPXE PXE boot of Windows PE.
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/winpe/winpe3-100.tar.gz/download
 * ERPXE PXE boot Paragon 2011
 * http://sourceforge.net/projects/erpxe/files/plugins/paragon/paragon2011-100.tar.gz/download
 * etc.


 * They all contain the file "boot.sdi" which is in fact the Microsoft "System Deployment Image" providing the ability to boot an embedded run-time image directly from random access memory (RAM). This file contains the BOOT BLOB which is in fact the boot program STARTROM.COM
 * This file is Microsoft copyrighted material, it is not produced by ERPXE, it cannot be freely distributed.


 * I think these guys have serious problems when deciding what to pack before distribution; They just make too many mistakes.
 * 213.37.84.214 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

213.37.84.214 (talk)

Matthiaspaul, ERPXE has been consensually removed because of several copyrights violations
It has been perfectly established in the recent past that the Project ERPXE has incurred several times in copyrights violations distributing protected material. The discussion regarding ERPXE copyrights violations has been completely removed from this page by Lowercase sigmabot III 12:17, 12 January 2014

It has also been agreed here that:

5 -Link to representative PXE projects only when supported by independent sources proving the linked project relevance and quality.

Not only ERPXE has been involved in copyright violations but also of course there are not independent sources proving ERPXE relevance and quality.

It is really unpleasant to see how certain people comes back with the same promoting agenda over and over. I'm consensually removing ERPXE; again. 213.37.84.214 (talk)
 * IP, please note I've condenses your message, getting rid of some unnecessary white space (please do this yourself with future messages, for clarity's sake). Note also that the bot doesn't remove anything: it archives. See Talk:Preboot Execution Environment/Archive 1 and Talk:Preboot Execution Environment/Archive 2. Having said that, I do not see exactly where that consensus is. I think the best thing to do is to start this all over again, briefly, in an WP:RFC, right here. I'm pinging and, who have been discussing this content in the past, and I hope that Ent will keep an eye on this, since they know a. policies and guidelines and b. something of this content. Let me make clear that I am utterly uninvolved since I don't know nothing about this topic; I don't even know what an execution environment is, let alone a preboot execution environment. And please don't explain it to me--my brain is full, and that's before I even read the third and final installment of Patrick Leigh Fermor's magisterial account of his walking tour to Constantinople. And let there be no acrimony here; no personal attacks. I may not know the subject matter, but I know proper behavior, even if I don't always practice it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I contacted you (Drmies) when I wanted to contact ; I'm also counting on and  inputs.
 * The consensus is clearly reached when the "Working Premisses" were agreed and when it was decided to remove ERPXE among other things because of their repeated copyrights violations.
 * I wonder why Lowercase sigmabot III is erasing specific things from this page.
 * I agree with you this is neither the place for acrimony or personal attacks. But this is also not the place to promote copyrights violators nor support people deleting key information.
 * I do not agree that we have to start over everything again; It took long time to come up with a working set of rules; we cannot just forget them. I have started the page editing you can read the first new paragraph; I appreciate some help specially in the formatting/quoting arena; please forgive me if I'm making some mistake on those fields. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot doesn't remove--it archives. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the bot is choosing very "specific" topics for archival; of course this is a hand guided bot.
 * Anyway I'm very interested in telling the "bot" not to erase/archive this page. 213.37.84.214 (talk)

ERPXE and whatnot
Hello there, ‎213.37.84.214! Regarding your intentions to restore some of the old and archived threads, here are a few things. First of all, nothing gets deleted, and old threads are simply archived; see the boxes on top of this talk page for links to the archives. Secondly, once a thread is archived it shouldn't be simply restored, instead please rephrase it as a summary (with a link to the archived original version, of you wish) and post it again if you seek for more input from other editors. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Dsimic the template subst:DNAU is now used to protect from bots 2 topics of this page: "PXE page working premises" and "Restrictions on Linking". The first one is the framework used these days for editing the PXE page; it has a lot of things that should not be archived. The second one is the one that reminds why ERPXE link has been removed preventing the "recurrent" inclusion of that project in the "External Links" section. I appreciate it very much if you can contribute to the PXE effort by not deleting these topics nor altering their content either.
 * I hope we can quickly move to the PXE technical arena if you are interested; sure that's more beneficial for WP readers.
 * 213.37.84.214 (talk)


 * Sure thing about improvements to the article, they're much more useful. Could you, please, briefly list your suggestions regarding improving the article?  As a note, please leave out the ERPXE thing as I really don't want to become involved into that debate. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have started editing the 3 first paragraphs correcting and adding things (please take a look, no finished yet) but I'm going to stick to what we talked before; I mean taking the standard and put it in simple terms.
 * About ERPXE there's really no much to say (I'm also tired of it). Just do this; put "pxe server" in Google and please tell me where you see ERPXE? In my case I found it at the end of the 4th page. The project is sponsored by some people here but it has virtually no relevance in the PXE world. 213.37.84.214 (talk)

ERPXE is marked as Vandalism instead of user (213.37.84.214).
Adding ERPXE link to this page was removed by Pxe 213 37 84 214 with message: "Vandalism;" Why it's so? It's been a year this project is being a debate in this page, because one of the competing proprietary products (213.37.84.214) with Personal interests and agenda which have no interest in the quality of this article, but only to remove this project from the page, as his product wasn't allowed to be on this page. he is trying to remove it constantly from this article, and now this project is marked with "Vandalism;" and this issue SHOULD be resolved finally!. ERPXE is a an noteable and important project in the PXE community, based on syslinux/ipxe/gpxe (which all are showing up in the article). There was a legal issue with few community based microsoft ERPXE Plugins (not ERPXE itself!), and they all fixed immediately last year! (in 2013) and there is NO legal issue with this project OR plugins as for 2014. ERPXE was linked from this article since they fixed, but the same person (213.37.84.214) tried to remove it again and again, was marked as spammer but nonetheless was finally succeeded with his vandalism and removed this link from this page with NO REASON except FALSE statements about ERPXE legal violation.! .

ERPXE is NOT warez based, nor any of it's plugins! there is NO copyrights violations in ERPXE, nor in any of it's plugins!

it's the biggest notable community based pxe project available, thousands of thousands of IT managers are using this technology. ERPXE will have a wikipedia article in the end, and it will be linked also from this article!. it's inevitable, as it's the major open source project in the PXE area. Admins, Please decide in this debate, it can't be continue anymore!. Wikipedia is a community website! it shouldn't be influenced by self-agendas proprietary companies, incorrect information and lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.28.180.106 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, they shouldn't have called it vandalism. But removing a sentence without a reference and with a redlink, well, that's hardly problematic. On the other hand, the above message is also laced with all kinds of personal accusations. If you want to do something useful to solve this problem, if it is a problem, you can write that ERPXE article. Don't ask me how to do it, since I don't know what "Warez" is (other than a "creative" spelling), what ERPXE is, or what a Preboot Execution Environment is. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you consider that the recent changes in this page were only aimed to remove the ERPXE reference please see the PXE page statistics. As you can see the PXE page received an extreme makeover and ERPXE was removed way before that because: 1) In the recent past it was more than once detected ERPXE distributing copyrighted material 2) There are not independent sources supporting the quality of the ERPXE project. I consider there are today many other projects more representative than ERPXE and there is not a single mention of them either i.e. FOG, COBBLER, CLONEZILA, Ultimate Deployment Appliance (UDA), SERVA, etc. I hope you will agree it is better having a PXE page just talking about PXE without mentioning other than very representative projects in order to protect the PXE page credibility. You are welcome to contribute to the PXE page with content other than only ERPXE references. Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:ATWV. Per WP:VANDAL "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.". The question is if 5.28.180.106 has been warned about adding spam links, that's if they are actually considered spam. Even copyvio isn't vandalism. Seems the article still needs basing on sources. I don't understand what "software assembly" is either. ERPXE doesn't need an article to be mentioned, just a source or two. It's an open source project after all. Although I detest the POV pushing in this article, the problem is one of WP:OWN driving useful contributions away. Agree it should be dealt with. Widefox ; talk 23:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 5.28.180.106's input was consider vandalism because the IP has only "one" contribution with the sole purpose of adding "again" a reference that has been questioned and consensually removed several times in the past (you might consider this is just a form of repeated WP:SPAM? you could be right). If the IP wants to add any reference he/she can propose it here providing the independent sources supporting the request and avoiding WP:LINKSPAM, WP:REFSPAM, WP:CITESPAM, etc.


 * About the PXE article I think it's plenty of sources now specially when describing the historical background of the PXE standard; if you think there's some missing reference please join the PXE page effort and let's discuss here about those missing references and where to find them.


 * A "software assembly" is the set of files initially TFTP transferred and booted. PXE does not boot a whole OS; it only boots that initial "Software assembly" which ends up setting up its own full TCP/IP stack with its own NIC drivers and finally retrieving the rest of components of the OS being booted or installed. At this point that software assembly uses other non-PXE API related transfer methods like NFS, mapped drives, HTML, etc..


 * ERPXE in order to be mentioned here needs to present independent sources probing the quality of the project; as I've said many times before I think ERPXE is not a representative project, there are many other good PXE projects out there with surely better reputation that are not spamming this PXE page; even when some of them are also open source. Being Open Source does not give spamming rights.


 * Finally if you "hate the POV in the article" please let us know why and again help us with your PXE ideas here; I hope your contribution to this page will soon be more than just ERPXE related stuff.


 * It is very frustrating that after taking the time for virtually redoing the whole page, after trying to make a page "advertizing free" with good sources and considering the PXE standard past and future we are here today still discussing about the ERPXE spammers.
 * Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)