This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Sorry about the confusion in the history. I thought maybe it would be a candidate for speedy deletion, but upon reading further I decided it should just be a copyvio. Timc 02:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have written a stub on the new temporary page.Tim Ivorson 15:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.139.161.106 (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The above link times out for me. It's also exceptionally old (April 2008). In the 11 years since I haven't heard any mention whatsoever of an Ion4.
Ion3 is quite dead and abandoned now, Valkonen never touched it again and it has since been superseded by the fork Notion (Not-ion) which has seen continuous maintenance since it's release almost a decade ago. New development has been happening to Notion in 2019 with some improvements in floating dialog windows (which was quite surprising when I first saw it - ion and then Notion have been functionally static for so long now).
I humbly suggest renaming this page 'Notion (window manager)', updating the introduction appropriately and removing Notion from the 'alternatives' section. Also, the larger version of that screenshot appears to be broken for me.
For now I've updated the 'alternatives' section with an external link to the Notion website and elaborated on it's supported platforms.
I agree, but being involved with Notion's development means I'm biased. I'd appreciate if someone else would write the article. A notion 4 release under the plain LGPL v2.1+ with all non-LGPL parts rewritten is currently underway. Ion3 is no longer packaged in any of the distributions I've checked. --84.115.2.34 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
What Desktop Enviroment Ion uses? can anyone add this piece of information? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.23.155 - 09:42, 22 July 2005
The text says that Tuomo threatened to sue, however the linked mailing list post mentions only that "there may be legal repercussions". Surely the two are not always the same?
I'm also not sure if his opinion on open source software or his intentions to leave are relevant to the controversy itself, much less the Ion3 window manager.
It's possible the section needs some expanding as well. Tuomo Valkonen's primary claim was that distributing ion3 with third party patches named as if it was the official ion3 was infringing his trademark. Many people confused this with other legal issues such as copyright violation. This, in combination with several flame wars on various mailing lists, has resulted in ion3 being removed from some distrobutions, rather than renamed which was all that was required.
If someone thinks something similar to the above has a place on the main page I can have a crack at writing a section with references. Nigel McNie 13:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree - Tuomo's threats and aggravations, against distributors and other things, were rather vague and hand-wavy (if very intense), less pointed than this suggests.
Then again, at the moment this is a rather polite way of saying Tuomo is nuts, which I think can be inferred from any reading of the ion mailing list. --68.212.72.30 02:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In the infobox it says the license is "LGPL with non-free clauses". How is it possible to mix LGPL with non-free clauses and still call it LGPL? And doesn't this make the software non-FOSS? So how can it be part of Linux distros at all?--87.162.27.188 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I must first say, I dont like his Ego. BUT whatever is written in a mailling list by him should recieve LESS PRIORITY than REAL ACTIONS. So far, Ion is still open source and before he *really* changes this approach, this article here should NOT HINT at it. Because, hinting at something which does NOT happen, is pure speculation guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Use the google: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69724#69724
"Or I could make it closed source, but I thought Ion3 would be my final gift to the FOSS herd, that it can never hope to repay. After that I'll be sticking to writing closed source -- perhaps for Windows. The FOSS herd simply isn't worth my work."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNewLayoutSucks (talk • contribs) 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The license is listed as LGPL. This is blatantly incorrect. It is a modified version of it which is no-longer free and no longer FSF or OSI approved. Older version of ion were LGPL and not-proprietary but now Ion is using a license which is not an open-source license (OSI's trademark). I'm just not sure what to say the license it, saying it is a custom-LGPL gives the impression it is open-source when in fact it is a proprietary license with the source available. --SingleIssueComplainer (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The refence 11 it's not found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.56.254 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The official page it's not found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.56.254 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I undid the change that said Ion was a dynamic window manager. It is not. With the definition provided under Dynamic window manager Ion would be dynamic but this definition is wrong as I've already said on the discussion page Talk:Dynamic_window_manager (a year ago). A source for this is the clear statement under [[3]] that says it is static and the sources I provided on said discussion page. I found no source that would support the definition used in the Dynamic window manager page, the german article that is used as the source in this article says _nothing_ of that sort. I write this here in the hope that a native speaker could help to correct the Dynamic window manager article. I already called attention to this a year ago, but the article is still the same, as I'm not a native speaker I think my english is not good enough to change it myself. --Pp323 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)