Talk:Joli OS

Open source?

Is Jolicloud really open source? On the website, no source is to be found, and no mention of it in the FAQs either. A websearch for "Jolicloud source" doesn't turn up anything. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The actual Linux parts of the OS are open source. You can download the kernel sources, and anything else licensed under GPL with the appropriate aptitude commands. The pieces of the OS that are closed are the server side code for the launcher, as well as the code for the kernel to interact with the launcher. This is okay as these pieces were developed by independently Jolicloud. Attempting to download these sources will result in a blank tarball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.18.24 (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

but that's not exactly open source. if company/team behind does not bother even to give out particular set of sources out there and instructions how to build, it is whatever but open source. silpol (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jaunty (9.04) Based

Updated article to reflect Jolicloud's base version of Ubuntu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.89.136 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reference? The current ones show Ubuntu, but no specific release. Barte (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Joli OS is based on Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid LTS since the 1.1. [Link to the official announcement http://www.jolicloud.com/blog/2010/10/19/jolicloud-11-under-the-hood/]. DclsBOSS (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)DclsBOSS

ubuntu based

a reliable source said the new 1.0 version has switched ubuntu for chromium OS, but I havn't confirmed Ms.henrick (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen Chromium described as "middleware" for Jolicloud in conjuction with the launcher, but that's not the same as saying the Ubuntu foundation is gone. Barte (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation of primary sources

Here's the Wikipedia statement on citing primary sources:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.Barte (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Joli OS vs. Jolicloud (the desktop) vs. Jolicloud (the company)

This article has been about the OS, so I moved the page to the new name, Joli OS, adding a section on the decoupled desktop, "Jolicloud". But an argument could be made that the article should instead be about the company, Jolicloud, which now has two products--an OS and a desktop/app launcher/cloud app UI. Barte (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DclsBOSS edits

Moving this from my talk page:

I reverted your revert for Joli OS. I made sure to perform small changes as you can see in the revision history: description, screenshot, additionnal information, etc... My goal is only to correct mistakes and add more information.

The new version is far more relevant and up-to-date but I would be happy to edit what's considered as un-encylopedic language.

Thank you. - DclsBOSS (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Barte (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the earlier language in the "Design, hardware compatibility" section. The replaced version had removed all citations (wp:v) and used brochure-like language (wp:neutral). Barte (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per discussion Barte (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Joli OS → Jolicloud – Apologies if I didn't set about this correctly. I was part of the discussion group that suggested deleting the article Jolicloud--the company--as non-notable. That article now redirects here, to Joli OS, the aspect of Jolicloud--the company--that is indeed notable. I've since attempted to reword the lead to encompass the company, while retaining the previous content on the OS. Moving it would be the next obvious step. Barte (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If Joli OS is the notable aspect of Jolicloud the company, and Jolicloud is not notable on its own, the article should stay where it is, and be adjusted as necessary. – Pnm (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting point. By convention on Wikipedia, if a company has just one notable product, does the company get the article or the product? I thought the former, but am willing to concede the latter Barte (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines to consider are the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for companies. Consider the product as a topic, and the company as a topic, and determine whether each one has the necessary independent coverage. If a company itself hasn't been written about there shouldn't be an article with that name. And the notability guidelines are only for determining whether an article should exist, not whether the topic can be mentioned. It's certainly fine for this article to include some coverage of the company, even if the company doesn't pass the notability criteria. – Pnm (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep--I see that. "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." I suspect that there are indeed sources that cover Jolicloud as a company that haven't been referenced in the article. This one for example might. Just to see if we're on the same page.....what do you think? Barte (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another one from GigaOm, which (I would argue) is a notable blog. In both cases (and doubtless, others), the company, not just the OS, has gotten independent coverage. Barte (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Though both those sources use "Jolicloud," they appear to be referring to the product. I see a couple sentences about the company but I don't think either one provides significant coverage. – Pnm (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The GigeOM reference is almost entirely about the company. It's true that the story covers the company's efforts to build an OS, but the term "Jolicould" almost alwasy refers to the company, not the product. And of course, the quotes are from the company's founder, talking about the company's efforts. Barte (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These quotes are about the product's introduction, not about the company itself:

“Our dream of turning any Windows netbook into an open Jolicloud machine becomes a reality,” wrote CEO Tariq Krim in the announcement blog post. “At Jolicloud, we believe people should be able to switch operating systems on their netbooks,” he added. “Like the adoption of Firefox made Web 2.0 possible, enabling users to switch OS will accelerate the growth and benefits of open cloud computing.”

This is all I see about the company:

The company has a very heavy-hitting management team. Krim was the founder of Netvibes, one of Europe’s successful web startups. Niklas Zennström, co-founder of Atomico Ventures, Skype, Joost, Kazaa and JoltID, also holds a seat on the company’s board.

– Pnm (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I take your point. Raising white flag Barte (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm ready to withdraw the request, but some additional thoughts. What happens if the company gets another notable product? For example, Jolicloud's laptop, Jolibook, received a flurry of press on its own. And conceivably, the company's cloud-based product (I admit, I can't figure out what it is), currently in beta, could, as well. By not having a company article to place these under, do we risk having a scattering of product articles, with no company article to link them together? In other words, at some point, does a company with notable products become, de facto, a notable company? Barte (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You might get different opinions from other people, but my attitude is precisionist: just as above, consider WP:GNG and WP:CORP. According to WP:GNG you can create Jolicloud when the company itself receives significant coverage, and according to WP:CORP a company does not inherit notability, nor is it inherently notable for having important products. If the product Jolibook is notable, create that, and add wikilinks between that article and this one, in prose, or in a see also section. If there are a several such products you could create a navigation box. Likely if that occurs there will be sources which discuss the company, in which case you could create an article for the company. – Pnm (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd clearly thought about this a lot, and I don't see any opinions to the contrary. It has been seven days, so I think we have consensus and I'm withdrawing the request. Thanks for taking the time: I learned something. Barte (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jolicloud 2 BETA emails sent out Sat 21 Dec 2013

NOTE: Whomever did the green box, above, forgot to do a closing DIV tag, so my comment, here, showed-up in said green box... er... you know... 'til I fixed it. If one deigns to DIV, remember to be complete. At any rate, here's what I wrote...

I don't know about anyone else, but I got this email message at around 7:30 AM PST this (Sat 21 Dec 2013) morning. For whatever that's worth. The link will probably expire after a few days, but my point is that "Jolicloud 2 BETA" is now being promoted.

The article obviously needs to be updated. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, this article is strictly about the OS. There is no article on "Jolicloud"--the company or the product of the same name. If you think either is sufficiently notable, you could delete the redirect and create it. Barte (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Jolicloud

Hello,

I would like to restore the article for Jolicloud. It currently redirects to Joli OS. But Joli OS is only one of the Jolicloud products. People who are looking for info about Jolicloud as a company are misleaded because of this redirection.

I agree with you that the company situation wasn't clear 2 years ago when the rediction has been made. But now, things are clear: https://www.jolicloud.com/our-story Of course, the article should be updated with encylopedic language.

Finally, no doubt the company is notable. Its product Joli OS is notable as one of the first cloud operating systems. And everyone already agree on that. Its other product Jolibook was one of the first cloud computers alongside the Chromebook. And many articles cover the products Jolicloud Me, Drive and Library released during the past 2 years. Those articles can be used as references to update the Jolicloud entry.

Thank you in advance for your reply. I hope we'll find a solution soon.

Best- DclsBOSS (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you're trying to restore the article simply by reverting back to the old one. And the old one was, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolicloud, marked as a redirect. Making minor changes to that article won't alter that and will just result in more reverts. If you think that circumstances have changed for the company, you could attempt to rewrite the entry, referencing some of the articles you mention. Ideally, there should be at least a few references that cover the company itself, not just its products. Such a rewrite is not produced overnight. To give yourself time, consider going through the new article submission process. Doing so will give you the time to create it, help if you need it, and a review at the end. There's no guarantee, of course, but it's a clear path. Barte (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joli OS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527062832/http://plugg.eu/program/speakers/p/detail/tariq-krim to http://plugg.eu/program/speakers/p/detail/tariq-krim
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325145431/http://www.jolicloud.com/blog/2011/03/09/welcome-to-the-new-jolicloud/ to http://www.jolicloud.com/blog/2011/03/09/welcome-to-the-new-jolicloud/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829001817/http://www.jolicloud.com/tour to http://www.jolicloud.com/tour
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829000309/http://www.jolicloud.com/compatibility to http://www.jolicloud.com/compatibility
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107003314/http://www.jolicloud.com/blog/2009/11/24/announcing-the-pre-beta-release/ to http://www.jolicloud.com/blog/2009/11/24/announcing-the-pre-beta-release
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://help.jolicloud.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)