I really do not see how that is an appropriate assessment of my article thus far... calling it minimalist and free of bloatware is hardly advertising when comparing to your run of the mill desktop oriented Linux distros. Also it should be obvious that a quote from the website of the developer is going to be one promoting his product. I really do not see a whole lot of if any invalid information in the article. Sometimes a product is just good in many aspects, and it isn`t a "neutral point of view" to not say good things about something, or make sure you say bad things about it. A biased point of view would be approaching the assessment of the OS with pre-conceived notions. I did mention that the package manager and format are relatively obscure and that software availability is limited compared with say Debian. It is a Beta OS right now.A proud Conservapedia editor since 2015 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your comment to an extent. The history clearly states this was made at the "request of the proprieter" - this is nonsense as I never requested this. "I" being Ikey Doherty, the project founder. 151.225.231.94 (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, original poter here. Sorry, Ikey, I confused the moderator on the Forum you have with being the "proprieter", so that was misinformation on my part. My main point really is just that it seems Wikipedia expects there to be equal postiive and negative about everything which isn`t hugely financially funded somehow (if you know what I am getting at). I appreciate your OS quite a lot, and will post a screenshot on this page soon. So, for the record, the actual proprieter of Solus [Operating System] did not request a single change be made to this page. If a Wikipedia admin can possibly point to a couple examples in this article which read like an "advertisement" (a seemingly nebulous term considering its broad possibility of applications) I will gladly confer on the talk page about possible edits. 73.219.246.119 (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) SpiffyAnarchist (Formerly CIA)[reply]

I am the main author of this page. I have no official or even unofficial ties to the authors of this operating system/distribution (whatever you would like to call it). If someone wants to constructively point out what is in need of change on this page I would be happy to edit it. I do not see why an article which is about a real operating system which contains real information about it (even if it is in a positive light) should be deleted. What other sources could really be used for such a relatively unknown OS than the OS makers website? It isn`t like academic papers or journal articles have been written about this OS. I find there to be little constructive help on this issue, and a lot of criticism which is not quite constructive. If this page is going to be blanked I will copy the text now to just move it to Conservapedia. 73.219.246.119 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page shouldn't be deleted, it should be expanded. In particular, what is the point of this distribution? What is its USP? Fig (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]