Template talk:Remote administration software

Notability

If you remove one non-free piece of software, you must remove them all to be fair. I don't see any reason to do that unilatterally, Alistair. Sbostedor 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia has to pass a test of notability. Would please point to a review of your software on a third-party site? I tried hard to find one when this issue first came up, but couldn't find a single mention of your software that wasn't prompted by your good self. AlistairMcMillan 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a large number. Pick a shareware website. Here's a nice review at This blog. They're easy to find. I'll post a few more when I get a second. Sbostedor 22:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I removed it myself. I don't want to be put into the 'spammer' camp. I just saw some competitors having links here and thought that I should have one, too. Seems fair, right? Sbostedor 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(popular) remote administration software

I added the term "popular" before "Remote administration software" because it definitely doesn't list ALL the rem-admin applications in the world! Sub-Z3R0 00:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that is introducing POV. See read WP:NPOV. AlistairMcMillan 01:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing that malware is mixed up with commercially and open sourced applications.

A few apps listed here are clearly deemed to be malware by all the security scanners. It wouldn't be POV to break out the template to show this split. That is clearly encyclopaedic. Other useful boundaries are between commercially supported and non-commercially supported applications. VNC lives in both camps (e.g. RealVNC) but isn't deemed as being as blatantly "malware" as say sub7. Ttiotsw 10:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)