This suggested edit (on a highly-upvoted question) came up in the review queue. It linkifies the words "GNU Screen" and "tmux", pointing them to the respective sites. The question was already useful and well-written, so there's nothing else for editors to do that I can see.
Is it useful to include links to the official web sites when programs are mentioned? Should I accept this edit?
yes, there's no harm in approving them provided they link to the official project sites
My vote would be to only change a modified post.
To me, the presence of the "post was edited", by somebody other than the author, instantly raises some question (in my mind) about how much I'm seeing the author's intended post. Often, I don't bother to go through the effort of manually checking the edit history to get all the gory details, so the result is simply that some credibility is questioned.
In this case, the question already had that pollution because of a minor (but very worthy) edit on April 15th, so I agree that the post looks better because of the edit. (The post still shows an edit, but simply shows a different person's name.) If it wasn't changed yet, I would feel more strongly that the edit should not occur.
Still, I think there is some harm in encouraging people to add such frivolous changes. This question is years old. I expect such a change would kick this question back to the top of the list of questions with recent activity (and thereby knocking another question off the list... which may be a more recent question that would actually benefit more by having someone notice it and add a more significant update). I therefore disagree with the submitter's proposal to make the edit, and would prefer that this be rejected so that the submitter realizes that more substantial work is needed to edit the questions.
I know, Stack Exchange help: Editing says "To add related resources or hyperlinks" is a valid reason for editing. However, I consider that to be "useful hyperlinks". If someone says "My computer won't boot Windows", I don't need people to point me to http://microsoft.com/windows to learn about who made the software. Likewise, if the question is about tmux, and has the tmux tag, I probably won't need to have a hyperlink to tell me what tmux is. (If the hyperlinks being added pointed me to a specific page that had information that provided details related to the question, perhaps because the web page contained a demonstration of the situation, that might be a useful hyperlink.) I might also agree that a hyperlink to Info-Zip might be useful, since there are multiple programs named "zip" on the planet. However, hyperlinking to "tmux" doesn't seem as useful.
All in all, I would probably push "Skip" (since the question had been edited before), but my inclination would be to reject rather than pass, so the submitter strives to only take up our time (by submitting new changes), and kicking questions to the top of the list again, when things are more useful.
kb! The reasons of the hyperlinks is to avoid this. 2. If the old question is kicked on the top of the list and someone notice the need to be updated, it can be done. This is the reason for kicking up instead of deleting the old questions.