Talk:Jolla/Archive 1

Archive 1

Relation between Meego, Harmattan and Mer and how it's reflected in Jolla's OS

Meego as a project didn't have exact UI, except the prototype ones. MeeGo vendors were supposed to provide their UI according to Meego UI guidelines. Even though Harmattan was not a real MeeGo instance (because it was more Maemo6 really), Nokia and Linux Foundation agreed to loosely call Harmtattan the "Meego instance". At present the project (MeeGo) and Nokia's product (Harmattan) are both basically frozen and abandoned. Community forked MeeGo codebase as the Mer project. Since MeeGo didn't contain final UI, but contained handset prototype UI, it was forked as Nemo (using the Mer core of course).

Jolla in order not to "reinvent the wheel" decided to use Mer core as basis for their OS. Interface on top of that will be Jolla's creation, and therefore it has nothing to do with MeeGo itself, rather may be it's somewhat related to Nemo. So the phrase mobile operating system based on MeeGo Linux and the core OS from the Mer Linux platform is not really correct. MeeGo is not referenced by Jolla in any way. They reference Mer. Meego itself by the way is reserved as a name by the Linux foundation, and Jolla didn't approach them in order to continue Meego as a project or for permission to call their OS "MeeGo". So for the sake of clarity and correctness which are essential for Wikipedia articles, Jolla's OS should be called based on the Mer Linux platform, without referencing Meego. Understandably, for marketing purposes, Jolla might call their product "Meego based" (since Meego is more or less known, while Mer is not so known outside Linux circles), but Wikipedia article should be based on facts, rather than marketing ideas. --Bahaltener (talk) 20:44, August 03 2012 (UTC).

Disagree with you.

• First, MeeGo is the opensource so whoever want can take open source code and use it for own purposes including building a new system especially. No permissions is needed to use open source code - this is the essence of open source and seems you either don't know that or have forgotten it.

"Mer is an open, mobile-optimised, core distribution aimed at device manufacturers; powered by Qt/QML and HTML5 - openly developed, inclusive, and meritocratically governed. (...) The Core is based upon the work from the MeeGo project and plans to share effort with the Tizen project." from http://merproject.org/

Jolla decided to use Mer core as basis for their OS, but not as you say "in order not to "reinvent the wheel" " but because this is what Mer is for and in fact there are MeeGo's libraries of the core level in the Mer project. And Mer is open source, what allows Jolla to use it. Again this is the essence of fact.

• Second, Mer contains MeeGo core libraries and is aimed for vendors only, Mer itself is not a full Linux distro aimed to end users, so not a platform in common sense used in Wikipedia, perhaps vendors-for platform only. In fact Mer is MeeGo w/o above core OS layers, and Mer "is to be what MeeGo never was, however should be". Some say Mer comes from "MeeGo Realoaded" or "Reactivated".
• Third, Jolla has declared their work connections with MeeGo and Mer - what is straightly against your thesis.

"We are going to do a new user interface. Selecting MeeGo enables us to do something new." and "So we will make a new user interface; of course we will inherit the familiar and powerful elements that MeeGo has, as we know it now(...)" from http://www.intomobile.com/2012/07/11/interview-jussi-hurmola-ceo-jollamobile-audio-and-text-available/.

This is against your intention to omit MeeGo in the article.

• Fourth, Note above "(...)we will inherit the familiar and powerful elements that MeeGo has(...)" what means exactly this is MeeGo based, isn't it? What is to be in article your POV around of hypothetical marketing approach or evidenced source? Any source with clear statemant about this marketing approach and not using MeeGo? Please provide a link.
• Sixth, do you have sources to prove your thesis and POV??
• Seventh, Also Nemo is MeeGo Nemo CE what means Community Edition, and still it is a specific edition of MeeGo with codename Nemo - believe me or not, but most probably "Community" from CE Community Edition does not have any permission etc. from Linux Foundation and also from Nokia.
• For above reason I will undo you editions about as they are creating just fake information in wikipedia. Please do not delete MeeGo and others again. Unless there will be a reason in facts.

However I am always ready to discuss and to perfect the content, but to develop the article upon facts, but not only on not evidenced POV.

Ocexyz (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Jolla does PR talk, while mentioning Meego. I didn't even practically see Mer mentioned by Jolla interviews. Wikipedia should be focused on facts. The fact is - Jolla is using Mer, not Meego. Source of Meego of course ended up in Mer (it's fork of Meego after all) but the name Meego is not free to use if you don't know. It's managed by the Linux Foundation. And Linux Foundation didn't give any permission to Jolla to call their OS Meego, or Meego instance. That was my whole point. So calling Jolla OS Meego based is not strictly correct. In actuality Meego project can be considered closed - so forget about the name Meego while writing about new projects. Therefore Jolla is Mer based. Through Mer it's of course related to historic Meego project, but that's not caleld "Meego based" anymore. If you have factual data that Jolla has a permission from Linux Foundation to use the Meego name - please provide it. --Bahaltener (talk) 03:13, August 05 2012 (UTC).

I think the discussion is rather artificial. Jolla is based on Mer which itself is based on Meego. The differences between Mer and Meego are not huge either, they just removed the previously bundled UI and hardware drivers. So I would say Jolla is founded on Meego and based on Mer (because my understanding is that a foundation layer is below a base layer).

In the end it is either a language or a trademark problem, but not an important problem.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

However, if a decision is needed, I tend to agree more to your POV, officially Meego is dead. Even if Mer is 99,999% like Meego, it is not 100% Meego. Maybe you both could agree to Mer and add a description that Mer is strongly influenced by Meego, even to the point that Meego-application could work with Mer. Here is also a good description about the differences between Meego & Mer:

https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Architecture

Edit: But this content should be in the Mer_(operating_system) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Almöhi (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my main point is - MeeGo project is closed. So it's invalid to say that new projects are based on it at present, especially if the name is not authorized by the Linux Foundation. How about phrasing it like this: Jolla Oy[1] (internationally Jolla Ltd., commonly called Jolla Mobile in the Internet and many sources) is an independent Finland-based company to design, develop and sell smartphones with mobile operating system based on the the Mer Linux core platform and strongly influenced by the MeeGo project. Mer Project is the community fork of MeeGo, and it was created after the discussion about new directions for the MeeGo project, approaching it from the angle of reconstructing the project from bottom up in order to reignite the project and fix problems with project management, governance, lack of transparency, direction and flexibility. Mer is intended for "vendors" (device manufacturers, hardware adopters or simply community distributions) and not to end-users - as it provides a mobile device oriented architecture, structure, processes and tools to make life easy for device manufacturers, but lacks a defined user interface. --Bahaltener (talk) 15:45, August 05 2012 (UTC).

Hmm, now in the context I think "strongly influenced is not enough" ;-) How about:

Jolla Oy[1] (internationally Jolla Ltd., commonly called Jolla Mobile in the Internet and many sources) is an independent Finland-based company to design, develop and sell smartphones with mobile operating system based on the the Mer Linux platform which is in turn based on MeeGo project. The Mer Project is the community fork of MeeGo, basically using only the Meego core components. It was created after the discussion about new directions for the MeeGo project, approaching it from the angle of reconstructing the project from bottom up in order to reignite the project and fix problems with project management, governance, lack of transparency, direction and flexibility. Mer is intended for "vendors" (device manufacturers, hardware adopters or simply community distributions) and not to end-users - as it provides a mobile device oriented architecture, structure, processes and tools to make life easy for device manufacturers, but lacks a defined user interface.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Now lets wait and see what Ocexyz will say.

Sounds good to me, since it underlines the fact that Mer is continuing Meego, and Jolla is related to Meego through that. --Bahaltener (talk) 18:53, August 05 2012 (UTC).

Hey guys, I moved this part of the intro into a subsection Technology to keep the main content of the article accessible to people who don't know or care about these details. --TuukkaH (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok with me, good idea for the non-professional users. My only question: Why did you make it a sub-point of "Products"?--Dark Almöhi (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I felt there's quite a few top-level sections already, and the technology is relevant via the product plans of the company. --TuukkaH (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm ok, I see your point, but I am still a bit worried, because there are no products yet. Of course the products use the tech. but, the tech. is also independent from the products, e.g. SDKs or just the general Linux-environment. Therefore I would like to have it as a dedicated section. I had a look on the other company websites, we could merge the strategy/management/employees sections under a new top-level "Corporate affairs", and thus cutting down the overall section-count. Then I think we could spend a new section for technology. What do you think?--Dark Almöhi (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Corporate affairs" sounds good to me, but I'm still hesitant regarding Technology. I don't see a problem in there not being released products yet, and I see Jolla OS as one of the products. Trying to think of a compromise, how about "Ecosystem" or "Product ecosystem" as a top-level section, and "Mobile devices", "MeeGo Market" (or whatever it's called), "Jolla OS", and "SDK" as subsections? --TuukkaH (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok then I will edit the "Corporate affairs" in the future. For the 2nd problem: I think you are right. I came up with another idea, why not rename the "technology" into software and the add an "hardware" subsection for the future hardware part (like processor, RAM, display etc.)? Both under the umbrella term "Product". "Technology" is just a very broad term, it could be anything, but we used it now just in the sense of "software technology", so why not just name it "software"?. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd avoid using the "ecosystem" term - too much marketing (non encyclopedic) flavor to it, after it was abused so much for vague PR by Nokia execs. Not that it's wrong or something - just sounds too bitter given the history of usage. One can use something like infrastructure, components, community or etc. --Bahaltener (talk) 02:41, August 08 2012 (UTC).

I agree --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, made these changes in the article. --TuukkaH (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

For the general meego vs.mer discussion, just found these:

"From the start yes, Jolla OS core is based on #merproject deliverables. " https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/statuses/226713866527195137

"#MeeGo is the name people know and love. #merproject is the core OS project name. " https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/230579553142181888

So I think we can agree to the fact that Jolla is in fact Mer based, and that they use "Meego" only for convenience. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to clarify all along, thanks for bringing references. So we can settle on the phrasing which you proposed above about Jolla OS as mobile operating system based on the the Mer Linux platform which is in turn based on MeeGo project. --Bahaltener (talk) 01:09, August 06 2012 (UTC).

I think we could stick to "MeeGo" outside the technology section as well, for convenience and less nit-picking. If C is based on B and B is based on A, then for simplicity you could also just say that C is based on A (especially when B in the middle is not a big change from A and not very notable yet). Most of our sources also talk about MeeGo and not about Mer at this point: "based on" doesn't have to mean "directly based on". --TuukkaH (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but I would stick to Mer in the general article and explain the differences between Mer & Meego somewhere else, e.g. in the beginning. The reason for my opinion are the old Meego users, for example the N9-owners, if they read Meego somewhere, they hope that Jolla would support their phone, tablet, whatever. Lots of people are already asking at Jolla's twitter account how they will support the N9, or when they will release the next update etc. etc. So the nit-picking is not only for nit-picking purposes but also for practical use. After some time people will get used to it, too. In short term view using Meego would be convenient, yes, but a bit incorrect and in the long term confusing. Better a bit confusion now, together with a good clarification/distinction here, than constant confusion for the next 5 years ;-) --Dark Almöhi (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reason to avoid using name MeeGo except for explaining the historic relation is two fold. Firstly, Wikipedia should focus not on familiarity of readers (or populace at large) with something, but on clarity and correctness of presenting the information. Unfamiliar things can be explained providing details (this will help to make them familiar). Clarity and correctness here is using Mer, rather than MeeGo. (If something, using MeeGo here only increases confusion, and not clarity). Historic relations are explained in the tech section, and the fact of derivation Jolla <- Mer <- Meego can be mentioned in the summary, so unfamiliar readers have all tools to get educated and not to miss the fact that there is a strong MeeGo heritage in here. Secondly, MeeGo is really a trademarked and restricted name. So attributing it to some OS (like the summary table in the article does for example) is wrong without Linux Foundation permission. But I think the first reason is the most important, since the most common Wikipedia's purpose is to educate unfamiliar users. So unfamiliarty is not something to be scared of - it's the expected norm. So Wiki provides correct and clear details on the matter. --Bahaltener (talk) 15:50, August 06 2012 (UTC).

Yes, claiming that "Jolla OS is MeeGo" would infringe on the trademark, but I don't think "Jolla OS is based on MeeGo" is problematic. Anyway, Jolla and all the newspapers would be in worse trouble for that. I think it's important to write in the language of the reader, and "Meego-based like Nokia N9" connects with something, unlike "Mer-based". And yes, clarity and correctness are important, but with communication there's always tradeoffs with providing too much detail. Being based on Mer instead of MeeGo is worth knowing for developer-minded people, but then you have to explain what's notable about Mer and how the UI is going to be "MeeGo-like" as well (at least that's how Ocexyz and I seem to have understood the sources: Jolla OS should appear like (backwards-incompatible) "MeeGo 2" to users.) I'm also wondering whether "Linux-based" would be an acceptable compromise here. --TuukkaH (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Expressing "Mer based" in the summary should be done because it's precise factual information (which Wikipedia should provide as an encyclopedic, and not just casual source). Adding MeeGo to the "based/related" phrase or not, and in what form to provide clarity and enough connection that's the question. The language should be chosen carefully in order not to mislead the reader. There is enough confusion already with mixing up Meego, Meego/Harmattan and so on. No need to add more confusion on top of that. For example how about something like: Jolla Oy[1] (internationally Jolla Ltd., commonly called Jolla Mobile in many sources) is an independent Finland-based company to design, develop and sell smartphones with a mobile operating system based on Mer Linux Platform and strongly rooted in the MeeGo project . I.e. the point is to be concise, to mentioned Jolla being a direct Mer derivative, and being related to MeeGo but not as direct derivative. I think all these facts are expressed enough in such kind of summary. More details about the relations will be explained in the technology section for those who are interested. --Bahaltener (talk) 02:50, August 07 2012 (UTC)

I agree here, too. Some news articles or blog entries can be blurry, but an encyclopedia should be unambiguous. People come here to look things up and get clarifications. If we are not precise here, the confusion would go on and on and on. Somewhere a line has to be drawn, and I dont think that an encyclopedic article is a bad place for it. In contrast to this, the "language of the reader" should be neither our concern nor our goal. That language is covered in all the blogs, news sites, etc. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit: based on Mer Linux Platform and strongly rooted in the MeeGo project Hmm .. now it sounds like Mer is a full Linux distribution, but that would be wrong. Their URL is "merproject" so I would also call it "Project", thus I would alter your sentence to: based on the Mer project and strongly rooted in Linux and MeeGo What do you think? (the 2nd "project" sounds a bit weired to me, that's why i deleted that after "meego", you can keep it, if you think it is ok). --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, using project 2 times will sound crude. But Merproject is just their domain name, not the name of the distro. More commonly Mer is refereed as Mer Core to stress that it's vendor, and not an end user targeted distribution. Mer page explicitly says that it's a "mobile-optimised, core distribution aimed at device manufacturers". Strongly rooted in Linux also sounds a bit strange, since Linux kernel is obviously an indispensable component of any Linux system. Maybe like this will cover all the details: based on Mer Linux core and strongly rooted in the MeeGo project. --Bahaltener (talk) 17:06, August 07 2012 (UTC)

* Wikipedia is to be based on facts, and verifiable sources. So until Jolla as the main source says "based on MeeGo" and until we can't provide a source there is different situation we don't have a choice from a point of rules, as article can't be based on our believes only. Even if this is Jolla's PR line we don't have basics to say "no it is not based on MeeGo" or do you have sources? Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the references that Jolla uses Mer as a base, and uses MeeGo as PR talk term: 1. https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/statuses/226713866527195137 2. https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/230579553142181888 --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

Man those sources only says what already was said in the article: "@MeeGoCentral From the start yes, Jolla OS core is based on #merproject deliverables." - what mean they use core libraries, and nothing more, nothing about PR purposes. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you understand what was said there? Someone asked why they use name MeeGo instead of Mer in their announcements. They explained that they use MeeGo name out of familiarity of general public, rather than factual reasons. Mer is the correct factual info. This reasoning of familiarity is irrelevant for Wikipedia, and I'm not going to repeat this anymore, everyone else in this discussion agrees to that. --Bahaltener (talk) 15:52, August 08 2012 (UTC)

* Besides, please understand well what is the Mer project. This is "MeeGo Reconstructed" and this is kernel with libraries allowing to use it as OS core on various brands of chips - it is not a Linux distro even, it is as "raw material" = "raw libraries" to build an own mobile linux or to use own mobile linux by a particular vendor/producer/manufacturer for it's device like notebooks, tvsets, InVehiculeStaff, computers, yahts and many others. It is strictly for vendors going to built own UI on this core OS - and this is exactly what Jolla does. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While Mer can be considered MeeGo successor and heir, even meaning MeeGo reconstructed - it's really a new name now, especially in the light of the demise of the original MeeGo project. So let's stick to the current name therefore which is not MeeGo anymore. You seem to missed all the discussion above - please review it. Phrase "Mer Linux Core" highlights the fact that's it's not an end user distro good enough. --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

No, because this is against sources and aware declarations, many declarations of the subject of the article. I haven't missed the discussion. I was thinking a long time about this. This would be the same like with Windows based on DOS and NT kernel. They have changed from DOS to NT and still were using the same name "Windows". So here can be used "Jolla's own system based on MeeGo Linux with Mer Linux Core distribution". That we/you assume it "is good enough" is not enough - the article must be easy to understand without possibilities to misunderstandings. And a new system as such in this case can't be considered as based on this core only, just because they say differently. And because this is logical. And this article is not to prove that MeeGo is dead or alive - this is discussion for the MeeGo article - this is the article about Jolla. Jolla declared to have own system based on MeeGo with the Mer core OS, with Qt and HTML5. By the way one of reasons why Intel insisted on HTML5 is that probably it needs more CPU power and Intel wanted to locate it's atom processors, so there are many different interests and forces which had or have influence. Whatever we are to stick with facts and sources. And in my understanding MeeGo can't be missed, as this just create falsification. And Mer is more developed and better governed but still only the part of the MeeGo. Because the MeeGo as the project has established the standard that made possible other parties (Samsung, Jolla) can built on MeeGo their own MeeGo based systems with the Mer core (jolla) or without the Mer core (Samsung, use pure MeeGo and Bada). Using own UI solution with MeeGo (Jolla, unknown yet but already declared "to have powerfull MeeGo elements that we (the Jolla team, of course not we here) know") or with MeeGo (Samsung which use mainly their own Bada Linux UI based on MeeGo base). For above reasons I consider this Meego based, and Meego as a standard creating the MeeGo family, including the Mer itself. And it doesn't meter if MeeGo will be called "closed" or "dead" or whatever else. The standard has been established and is followed. And this will allow software from Harmattan, Tizen and Jolla have a chance to be compatible, but not the Mer only as this is a fork, and there can be more of them even.

Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

* I suppose 95% of common users/customers will not be aware what the Mer is and will have incorrect picture due to use unknown = improper term, and I mean the Mer here. This is also important as there are on the market products with MeeGo like notebooks by Acer or Lenovo IdeaPad S100 or Nokia N9, so MeeGo is not only closed project but also a number of existing products, better or worse but known. And "official" closing of MeeGo has not closed the community (alive still), developers (developing still), forums, chat (MeeGo chat is really alive, you can check yourself). So for me "MeeGo is closed project" is not any final argument. This is opensource, anyone can take a code and develop it. Also we can't exclude Jolla is just doing it. Any verifyable sources against? A link please ;) Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want facts of the demise of Meego see for example: https://meego.com/community/blogs/imad/2011/whats-next-meego where they explain why the aren't evolving Meego anymore. See the discussion above. Familiarity or unfamiliarty of users with the name Mer is irrelevant. Wikipedia talks about tons of unfiamiliar to readers material, making it familiar by the mere fact of explaining the information. Improper term here is one that creates confusion and reduces clarity, and that is MeeGo, especially since Jolla's team is coming from MeeGo/Harmattan team, and MeeGo/Harmattan is already very commonly confused with MeeGo (project). Therefore Wikipedia should be careful to reduce this confusion. So I see my proposal above as valid: based on Mer Linux core and strongly rooted in the MeeGo project. I don't see what kind of wrong picture user can get with this. User will see that Jolla relates to Mer and MeeGo in some different ways, and if interested will go to the technology section to figure out the details. --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

This source is old Imad's declaration that "now all should join the Tizen". It doesn't meter if Jolla develop MeeGo anymore or not, MeeGo is to be considered as standard used as basis for the Jolla's own work, but not as MeeGo developed as a project - I think this is the point and you miss just this relevant difference. But also note well negative comments below in the same place, source. They just show that people do not consider MeeGo as dead, even if project has been declared to be "dead". Following this source we ought to consider Tizen based perhas, what would be insane ;) Also take under consideration that a group of people that time wanted to find a way to safe&rescue as much as possible, and Tizen was the best idea they had on the table, but this is unrelated to Jolla's project now - Jolla follow it's own path and is independent company, also independent from Imad's declaration that time Exactly for clarity I think "Jolla's own system based on MeeGo Linux with MeeGo fork core OS - the Mer Linux core OS (...)" as this reflects true facts, as described by sources, and do not omit very relevant for the project fact of MeeGo as used standard frames. Also I don't believe Jolla's team will not use their experiences from Harmattan, that would be artificially, and very improbable. They can support N9, but they don't want to support different company's product. I think if Nokia will pay them for this, they will sell such a work and we will have another update for N9, the similar is with Acenture and Symbian I think. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

* There was about right to name. If the Linux Foundation do not protest when Jolla use this name for it's purposes then how do you know they don't have any agreement about? Or Jolla use it in frames allowed by GPL licences or similar? And this is quite legal? Still this is opensource, remember please. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This matter is the least important. Clarity and correctness of the content is the most, so I won't comment on trademarks anymore. --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

I agree. If this is the least important then should not be used against as strong argument, above there is demand to show Jolla's permissions to use the name of MeeGo. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

* Those: Tizen, Harmattan, Meltemi, Jolla's-system-something - all they are MeeGo Linux family, or MeeGo ecosystem (I think this term is most adequate) because they use 95-100% of core from the MeeGo and modifications starts above, I think in my limited knowledge. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You can call them loosely a "Meego" family (like heirs wise), but quite loosely. I surely against calling them all "Meego based" in a Wikipedia article. And I already said above that it's better to avoid using the term "ecosystem". It's too abused in PR talks and doesn't feel fitting anymore because of this. --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

I disagree. If a term is overused in PR talks it does not make it less important, this is irrelevant. Term "MeeGo ecosystem" reflects facts of several campanies, group of developers, several communities, independent sites etc. are involved somehow in MeeGo family products - both software and hardware. PR talks are not factors which are to change our minds I suppose. I just think MeeGo ecosystem exists, that's all. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

* Besides Jolla directly said they are going to use in UI MeeGo whole elements, not only modifications - what in my understanding mean there will be MeeGo code included. What makes situation that the important source said this. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Jolla said that. They said they'll create their own UI. And I'm not sure how it's even possible to use "MeeGo ui elements", since MeeGo didn't have a UI - it had a UI guidelines, leaving UI details to be implemented by MeeGo vendors. If you mean Harmattan (see how confusing this is already!) - then it's wrong, since no Harmattan UI code can be used in Jolla since it's Nokia's. --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

I am sure Jolla said that, when I'll have free time I'll find the source and place this in article. This is they, not me who could mean Harmattan. You do not know what part of code of Harmattan can be used or not. Harmattan is Nokia's code, but it is based on MeeGo still which is opensource. eg. swipe itself is the invention of the third party company adopted (bought?) by Nokia. So this is more complicated I think. And saying Jolla's OS is only Mer based will be much more confusing, not reflecting true facts, so wrong. I am not against the Mer, I am against excluding MeeGo from the article. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

* And I think until Jolla will not declare anything else it will be MeeGo and we can only add they are using also the Mer, what in fact also comes from the Jolla statement, and not from anything else.

It won't be MeeGo really, let's honestly face the facts. All details were already explained. --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

Read sources carefully and with understanding: Jolla, Hurmolla, Twiter say "it will MeeGo based" and there never were "it will be MeeGo" - this is huge and fundamental difference!! And we are melting it again and again. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

* I suppose the Mer project leaders care first of all about being for vendors (like Jolla) and not about any particular Linux distribution, they want more to be "kernel OS creators/developers/testers" then anything else. At last this is what they says.

That's right, no one argues with it. How does it prevent calling Jolla's OS "Mer based"? Jolla (vendor) uses the core (Mer), thus it is Mer based. Simple and clear. --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

My point is that it is mistake to call Jolla OS based exclusively and only on the Mer. The Mer is a part of system, core OS from MeeGo, it is not a whole system. Jolla OS is not based on the Mer only. It also based on MeeGo, Qt and HTML5 - and the Mer does not contains them at all - as this is the core distro for vendors only. Important and core, but only this. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

* My conclusion for this moment of time: there should be mentioned both MeeGo and Mer. We just can't change Jolla's statements and other sources which we are to provide, and they are about MeeGo. Only in one interview was about the Mer, and because of this the Mer can be included (unless no mre sources about this). The article content can't be in opposition to sources, and sources says "MeeGo based". The Articel can't say "Mer based" when manufacturer says "MeeGo based", Wikipedia users would be confunded and lost. If this will change with launch of Jolla's smartphone or the Jolla's website, the article ought to be adjusted - IMHO. But this also should not stop us from adding what we know about role of the Mer IMHO. Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that both should be menitoned, but in a different fashion. I proposed this: based on Mer Linux core and strongly rooted in the MeeGo project--Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

This is foggy for most of people, thus can lead to falsification of facts what would be against encyclopaedic approach IMHO. I'd propose more something like "Jolla has declared to build it's own system based on MeeGo Linux with the OS core from the Mer Linux, which is the MeeGo fork for vendors(...) and with Qt and with HTML5" Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

* The first version (as I remember from memory) like: "based on MeeGo with use of the Mer, Qt and HTML5" was in fact a quotation from Jussi Hurmola, but as I wanted add some explanations what is what, there was not quotations marks. Ocexyz (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I object the usage of "based on MeeGo" phrase because it's misleading. See above. --Bahaltener (talk) 22:24, August 07 2012 (UTC).

I object the sole usage of "based on Mer" and I object not to use "MeeGo based" at all. You treat phrase "MeeGo based" equally as "it is MeeGo" what is not true, and what is over-interpretation. Also see above. Anyway the consensus will be found. ;). Ocexyz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

After our long discussion I have used quotation from the following tweet: "Junfe Al Mark ‏@heyimJUNFE @JollaMobile oh thanks for the clarification! so its jolla OS then? and its base on meego not meego OS? Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @heyimJUNFE Based on #meego operating system, with #merproject core and other projects." source: https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/233061880363634688 and another important I think: "Junfe Al Mark ‏@heyimJUNFE @JollaMobile since meego is a trademark of nokia and intel.. you can do better! #jollaFTW Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @heyimJUNFE #MeeGo is a trademark owned by Linux Foundation. Jolla is making an OS based on the #meego work with own new UI." source: https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/233056222406901760. And also one of most important for this discussion tweet: "Khertan ‏@khertan @JollaMobile if you plan to use qt as main fw, did you plan to have qt components "harmattan-compatible" API ? Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @khertan There will be a set of components, and at the moment QML with the Harmattan components are recommended (see #nemomobile also). Khertan Khertan ‏@khertan @JollaMobile thanks for taking time to answer. Will be easier to port apps so :)" source: https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/233185499488088065 And my point is that we can't pretend this is not important, and that was not declared. We can have our POV, but can't be against facts and sources. However there is no obligation to follow - if you disagree or treat this as PR only, then a section "critics" can be added and you can place there your POV that this is Mer operating system based. I disagree with this, also because Mer is not the full operating system, but still you can put your POV. However it ought to be mentioned clearly this is the comment and critics, and also sourced, and why and what for. Then this makes sense, as not omits facts and sources but shows critical POV against suspected PR. And you will not be against what sources says, and whatsmore you will be more free to explain your POV. This would be fair for all interested in IMHO. Note also please: they are going to include something from Harmatan, so now you can't exclude there will not be used Nokia's code with an appropriate permissions etc. - now it is nor confirmed nor denyied, this is still open question. And we are only describing this article only, The Jolla is creating their creation, remember please - we don't know better then they know ;) IMHO Ocexyz (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Meego vs. Mer /@Ocexyz

I think you mix up Meego's work (libraries etc.) and the Meego brand. The Meego brand is dead, gone, finished, but Jolla will reuse some of Meego's technology, yes - but not all and everything. Because everybody is used to the Meego name, they still use it. There is no other reason for this. See the various twitter links. Nevertheless, even if Mer Core and Meego Core were currently sharing the same code for 100%, the Meego name is dead. The Meego from 2 years ago was 100% Meego, the Meego they are now talking of is maybe around around 50% Meego. Basically what they really mean is Mer, but they dont use that name, as it is unfamiliar. In any case it is not 100% Meego and therefore I would abstain from using the Meego name too much, especially for future products. There more changes the code base will get, the more different it will be from the old Meego. However, for finding some common ground: I could agree to the term "Meego core" instead of "Meego" alone. The differences should then be explained in the Software section. (Thanks @TuukkaH for the re-organization, I just had time to do it now and found out that it was already done ^^)

I still think it is a bad idea, because some people might still mix up "Meego Core" with "Meego" which would not be a problem if we would use the new name "Mer", especially if Jolla twitters: "based on Meego with #merproject core.

Or maybe shorter: I could agree to your current POV, because there are no big differences between Meego Core and Mer, but my points against it are a) Future changes will result in bigger differences b) Meego Core is not Meego

Maybe we can do some research what Meego Core / Mer is including? If it is some Linux kernel with some added libraries, then we could also write that they use the same core libraries as Meego or sth. like that and we would have some facts. Maybe the Meego-architecture scheme could be a starting point: http://lh3.ggpht.com/-kv7y6jjkL48/TFZ9G_iJrOI/AAAAAAAAFJs/EAqJhw5hfx8/s900/architecture.PNG.jpg

On that picture we also have a definition of "Meego Core". Now the question is, if Mer has the same feature or not. If not then I would not even agree to "Meego Core" --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree to the above. Using Meego name will be less and less relevant in the future, so for Wiki it's better to stick to the correct name (Mer) right away. According to Mer architects, Jolla are not using Meego (as in project hosted by Linux Foundation) and simply refer to Mer as MeeGo. What they usually mean by "Meego" is just continuing the effort which is reflected in Mer and global community of users and developers. Since it's easy to confuse that with Meego as in project - sticking to Mer in the article (with some explanation of Meego heritage) will solve these problems. For Mer architecture, see: https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Architecture --Bahaltener (talk) 17:47, August 08 2012 (UTC)

The strategy section is very confusing as it is right now: ...system and user interface developed by Jolla, which will be "based on MeeGo operating system, with the MerProject core"[6], so containing the OS kernel core of Mer (which is the MeeGo fork and core OS distro aimed for vendors like Jolla), with Qt and HTML5 First of all, the operating system layer comes from Mer with combination of hardware specific components (i.e. drivers). It's not coming from anything like what you phrased as MeeGo operating system. Hardware specific components are called hardware adaptation in Mer terms and are provided by Mer vendors (and/or hw manufacturers). Qt and HTML5 components are as well coming from Mer which provides libraries and support for those. Therefore what's Jolla is introducing on top of Mer and hardware adaptation is their user experience layer - the interface. In the interface they might continue some ideas from Harmattan (but just ideas, not code which is Nokia's). So 1. Jolla is solidly based on Mer as the most integral part. 2. They are continuing some work of the Meego instance Harmattan in the sense of the interface. That's not called "based on the Meego operating system". It can be called continuing interface efforts of some Meego instances. --Bahaltener (talk) 17:47, August 08 2012 (UTC).

As I said above all those doubts can be placed in section "Critics". Simply because we do not have power to dictate the Jolla what they are doing and what they are not doing. The Jolla is in power to say what their product containing and not we here.

• This is what manufacturer has declared and explained, even if in confusing way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocexyz (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• It is good to make some research on MeeGo and Mer, I have made mine several months ago already - so this is the reason of my opinion.
• Mer is made of MeeGo core and developed, but Mer is not a system, so a product can't be based on core only, this is impossible: in the same way as microprocessor without set of {keyboard, RAM, monitor, motherboard, elements on motherboard} is not a full computer, it is only a microprocessor. It is only the heart, but not the whole living organism.
• The Linux Foundation keeps the name for the same reasons which made Linus Thorsvald to copyright "Linux" as trade mark - to disallow any entity to trademark this name and to forbid using it freely by whoever wants, now and in future. Enlight me if there is anything else around MeeGo. This is exactly to allow people and organisations to use "MeeGo" name.
• Anyone can take what one want from MeeGo source code and to do what one wants, but because of GPL licences s/he can only do it when in developed product using MeeGo source codes will be mentioned that it is based, developed upon, contained or something similar about MeeGo. Jolla would BREAK the licences if would hide that "system is based on MeeGo" and would use even only one single character of this code. And I think for this reason it will always be "MeeGo based". And it doesn't meter in what part, it is irrelevant, because this is opensource and because this is trademarked and because of GPL licences it will have to be mentioned "based in MeeGo", otherwise code can't be used and this will never happen, as Jolla need it. Can you see this is not possible?
• Last but not least: have you seen anything from Jolla's OS code? When? How? How do you know what in fact there is or in fact there is not? They decided to describe it in this way. And they have power to do this. The only way to express different POV and opinions against is to write them in "critics" section, not in software, unless there are no sources confirming such a thesis, so different then we have now.
• This turns more into discussion "MeeGo is dead" vs. "MeeGo is not dead". What is definition of dead MeeGo?

- still there are products with MeeGo and you can buy it

- still you can buy software for MeeGo stuff

- still softwares for MeeGo are developed

- still appears updates for MeeGo software and completely new MeeGo titles

- still there are sites, shops etc. actively selling both MeeGo software and MeeGo hardware

- still appears posts, articles, tweets, sites, chatrooms, forums about MeeGo in several languages

- still there are crazy people (like we here..... ;) ) discussing, chatting, mailing about MeeGo (ask also developers)

- the point is that Meego is not actively developed in frames of project like it was under Intel+Nokia+theLF. But again there is MeeGo Nemo CE community edition - so in fact it is in development somehow.

And this completely DOES NOT mean that using MeeGo code for own purposes, including systems for smartphones is impossible or forbidden. If there are evidencies for different POV please provide links to prove it.

Then what do you mean by "MeeGo" is dead? I write this with MeeGo, so what? The letters written here are dead zombies and bites from the screen? (forgive me, "True blood" has ended in shop at the corner and they are quite hungry ;) )

From time to time somebody claims "MeeGo is dead" and what? Does this prevent Jolla to create MeeGo based smartphones? I think not. This is only easy headline. But still there were neither a funeral nor a grave. And still MeeGo is reported to be seen at the party having fun.

Mer has not replaced the MeeGo at last not currently. Still we are talking about the MeeGo ecosystem, not the Mer ecosystem. And to describe this we are to use terms which are used, they are all around Meego. Mer is also needed, but I think it will not replace MeeGo completely, for above mentioned reasons. Or in the other words: anything that use Mer core will be MeeGo based, but NEVER vivce versa. Ocexyz (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking precisely about the Mer derivation, which in your terminology can be called Mer ecosystem. Mer vendors (such as Jolla) as well as community distributions (KDE/PlasmaActive for example) and third party developers are all part of that Mer ecosystem. It's not MeeGo ecosystem anymore, since Meego is a closed chapter. Now it's about Mer derivatives like this one: http://makeplaylive.com/ Note how they explicit reference Mer, and not MeeGo. They are correct and precise. And KDE/PlasmaActive is targeted for end users, providing full user experience. Jolla is in the same position - they are vendors of Mer, as well as KDE/PlasmaActive are. They are all part of the Mer ecosystem, but I won't call them part of the same "MeeGo" ecosystem - that would sound weird and simply incorrect, since MeeGo is a closed project. I'm not talking about closed as in end of support idea. I mean as an end of development and progress. MeeGo as a project is frozen now and while there are support obligations for existing products (netbooks, N9 with Harmattan and so on), MeeGo as a whole projects encompassing handset/tablet/netbook/IVI and etc. is not developed anymore. As well as Nokia even closing Harmattan bugzilla for accepting new bugs. Therefore from the development perspective MeeGo as a project it can be considered dead and closed, with Mer project and Mer derivatives such as Jolla and PlasmaActive being the way forward. I agree that at preset we don't have any concrete documental evidence of what Jolla OS would be, except for some statements from Jolla representatives where they explained why they use the name Meego for convenience, and not because of factual reliance on the Meego project. We know some solid facts though like Jolla using Mer infrastructure and Mer code (they even contributed hardware for Mer OBS), Jolla not using Harmattan closed code (it's proprietary Nokia's) and Meego project being frozen. --Bahaltener (talk) 19:30, August 08 2012 (UTC).

Even on the site mentioned by you can find: "Vivaldi is powered by Mer Core and KDE's Plasma Active" - note the Mer CORE, not the Mer operating system! You still try to make operating system from the merproject, while still this is the core. And Plasma was to be the MeeGo optional interface. We are at the same point. Mer is not any system, developers of this project says that, then why you still want to prove against project developers - I don't know. See merproject.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocexyz (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I insist on not calling Mer a "Core". I explicitly proposed to say in the summary: that Jolla OS is based on Mer Linux core and strongly rooted in the MeeGo project. That's exactly referencing the fact that Mer is a Core. So Vivaldi site says that - they are based on the Mer Core. Exactly the same can be said about Jolla. Your phrase that Mer is not any system is irrelevant to the above. What you mean is that Mer is not a system for end users. But no one insisted anywhere that it is. So I'm not sure what you are arguing with. --Bahaltener (talk) 01:09, August 09 2012 (UTC).

I think while source says "Jolla OS is MeeGo based with Mer core" we ought to follow this. And when we have different POV on what it is this should be mentioned as critic. I think phrase based on Mer Linux core and strongly rooted in the MeeGo project is not clear and lead to misunderstandings. A person not familiar with the subject can understand this in many different ways, what is not any good practice. Ocexyz (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You only follow things if they make sense ;-) "Jolla OS is MeeGo based with Mer core" does not make sense, because Mer is the successor of Meego. So it has to be either Meego or Mer, not both. Currently I would write " Jolla OS is based on Mer and continues the work which was started by MeeGo" Could that maybe be a compromise?--Dark Almöhi (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of the deletion nomination in the company milestones

I removed the following passage from the company milestones section, as I think including it in the article was giving the Wikipedia process of deletion nominations more relevance than is due.

On 2012-08-03 in the result of discussion the Jolla article has been kept in Wikipedia in English. The page was nominated for deletion on 2012-07-27 with accusation Jolla project to be "not notable". The consensus gained means that Jolla has been assumed to be the notable project for relevant number of Wikipedists of that time.

--TuukkaH (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Itself it is not so relevant. But when you consider that our colleague Lumialover has successfully deleted Jolla from Wikipedia in: Swedish, Chinese, Polish, Turkish and still trying in German - with this background it has more relevance. And not only for Jolla but also for Wikipedia as independent and encyclopaedic source as such - and this is more then relevant, also for whole Wikipedia as project. Simply: this looks for me like aware attempt towards to censorship: in all languages were the same attempts, arguments, schema of action, and fluent language. Multilanguage native speaker? In such "similar" languages like Swedish, Chinese, Polish, Turkish? Even not the same alphabets...! Hard to believe. However of course this is not most important thing. However might be good to notice it, perhaps. Ocexyz (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you both. At first, after I saw it, I thought it is odd, but then I immediately remembered the discussion in the German WP. The Lumia-guy seems to be gone, but there are still other ppl around who argue like: no product -> nothing -> also no wikipedia relevancy. I was arguing about the software side, but then they question the reliability of a twitter source (Jolla's twitter account of course). However, in the end the article is about Jolla, and should not be concerned with other's problems, I therefore also agree to remove it from the English version. There were also some comments like "we dont care about the English WP", so why should we care in that case about the German version.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, don't the other Wikipedias accept that if the press is writing about the company then it's notable? If Lumialover is this super-polyglot user doing this all, I'm sure there's a news story behind this. Can anyone post links to the various AfD discussions here? If we get a news source for this, I'd want to mention the controvercy in the article in the lines of "some org/company found Jolla important enough to lobby to try to keep it out of Wikipedia". --TuukkaH (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They do, but people still demand to see a real product. Seems like people are very cautions about companies that got a lot of press coverage, It might be just a hype about a company which later wont achieve anything. I dont agree to that risk-view in the Jolla case, they got enough investments (10 mio.) plus they have enough experiences ex-Nokia ppl. on board. But the others might not know it or dont care, or I simply dont know.

About the lumina guy: I am not sure, maybe he was just a 13y old bored kid home alone during summer holidays. He wrote a lot in the German AfD-discussion, and he also started there, so I assume he is German speaking. The rest he did was just to add some Wikipedia-code for fast-deletion into the articel-headers. You don't need special language knowledge for that, google translate would be sufficient. Most of the articles were poorly written, only 1-2 lines and no references, so I can see the admin's reason to delete it. The only other language where he wrote something was here in English, because the fast deletion was rejected by an admin. All in all, I wouldn't mention it, we don't know if it really was professional lobbying or just a bored kid. We can only speculate, but speculations are not allowed in a wikipeda article. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree as we don't know and we don't have a source anyway. --TuukkaH (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, good, less work to do :) --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion in English was rejected after many efforts pro&contra, don't be naive: Lumialover has not disappeared. Frankly this is quite possible he is only the internet person what in fact mean a group of ppl using one nick, this or another, or more others. Note well: there are none any even small critical facts against Microsoft technologies around eg: Lumia models have/had several hardware and software problems, but all facts mentioned about this has been deleted because "this is not a verifiable fact", "this is not a reliable source", "this is a blog" or just without any reason, just because. As I have heard Microsoft has an official agenda to make Windows dominate technology and hire ppl for the position of "the Microsoft evangelist" - so don't be naive nor blind. This is how they use Wikipedia and especially Wikipedia code for their marketing, and for their own purposes. I also don't believe in bored teenager speaking 7 languages and while being bored then spending time to learn Wikipedia code in 7 languages and make remarks more like lawyer then even common Wikipedia user. Bored teenager would not be able to focus on several discussions for so long time. Would you believe s/he would not choose to play a computer or to watch tv? Instead to work on deletions? Be serious, please. And I have seen several wikipedists/users claiming for censorship and accusing the sources of this are somewhere in Microsoft. I think it need only to make a simple query and some efforts to ask ppl to get answers. There were to many of "non-accidental accidents" to believe there are no people with either marketing plan or just having job with editing Wikipedia according to company marketing needs. Problem become serious when this turns just into censorship and denying facts rights to exist. Weather we like it or not Wikipedia as first/theeasiest source of information has an influence of marketing decisions. Also the problem is that BillGates is against any opensource at all by default and by his believes, and when this goes together with products marketing very easy some resources can be devoted to lets say "patrolling and carrying for MS image" in Wikipedia space/sphere also, what in fact is more then close to marketing. Lumialover has not disappeared, lovers are more then patient IMHO ;), especially those a little bit specific or professional ones ;). But meanwhile we are playing with our toys nicely and silently, till next confrontation with rude children ;).

And note: non-English and non-German Wikipedia users currently DOES NOT have any chance to get info about Jolla from Wikipedia in fact. So Lumialover in fact has succeeded with his efforts to delete Jolla form Wikipedia space. Sad but true. Ocexyz (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes, I am aware of the stupid lobbyismn, but my point against it, was his/her/their name. If it would have been professional, then the lobbyist should have choosen another, unsuspicious name. If they call themselves "Lumina sth" however, then it would be too obvious in my opinion. But who knows...--Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is quite easy to explain: none resistance was expected after such a marketing costs for lumia, and that's all. Ocexyz (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be, too, of course. I also wonder if one can seriously "love" Lumia. It is seriously not such a good product ^^--Dark Almöhi (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mer and the MerProject - it is not any operating system which could be any base for operating system, because this is THE CORE only

Please note clearly that Mer does not try to be anything like a Linux system or a Linux distribution.

• Mer is an open, mobile-optimised, core distribution aimed at device manufacturers; powered by Qt/QML and HTML5. Note "core distribution" so but NOT any "operating system", hence no operating system can be "Mer based", because this is ONLY THE CORE, not a system. See the source.
• The Core is based upon the work from the MeeGo project. So the Mer is "MeeGo based".
• Provide a mobile device oriented architecture. Only the architecture, not any system.
• Primary customers are device vendors - not end-users. So don't need to be any system.
• Have structure, processes and tools to make life easy for device manufacturers
• Inclusive of projects and technologies (eg MeeGo/Tizen/Qt/EFL/HTML5)
• Support innovation in the mobile OS space - and this is most important in the Mer, but not being "an operating system"

See the source and more here: http://merproject.org/ Ocexyz (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In general all above is correct, except that Mer Core is a Linux distribution, but intended for vendors. Distribution is a broad term and not all distributions are targeted for the same user base (like desktop/mobile common users). Mer distribution is a core, not end user product. Saying that some Mer vendor's OS is based on Mer or that OS is Mer derivative doesn't contradict anything of the above. --Bahaltener (talk) 19:47, August 08 2012 (UTC).

"(...)Mer is an open, mobile-optimised, CORE distribution aimed at device manufacturers;(...)" why do you try to propagate not true info? With full respect - I think the project authors know better. This is quotation directly from http://merproject.org/ and sorry they say this is core distribution, but not Linux distribution. Only with additions like interface from MeeGo, Nemo, Plasma etc. combined with this core a Linux system is created by it's developer. I think this difference ought to be recognised. Core is not a system, this is entirely different thing. And has different aims, it is for different use then a system, core it is for building a system, while system is for using it as a system. This misunderstanding can cause some falsifications I suppose. And Mer don't want to be a system as they want to provide the core for several possible systems which can be built on this core, like mentioned in this discussion Vivaldi, like Jolla's OS, like MeeGo Nemo CE and others. Mer is to provide low level libraries as raw material for a Linux system building, but it is not any system itself, so calling it a Linux distribution is a mistake, meteoritic mistake IMHO. A Linux distribution I recognise as something different, from the experience and common understanding of this term. And we ought to avoid such confusions. IMHO with full respect. Ocexyz (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't got the meaning of "core". From Meego's architecture picture that I posted, it seems to me, that it is a fully Linux, just without User Interface. However even X11 is already build in. So you could use the text console. When I was young, no Linux distribution had a graphical user interface, thus, in my opinion, I would call it distribution, too. (and maybe add that an UI is missing). However, I also think that we can just forgot about what Mer really is. Nobody cared about Meego, either. I guess that is where the term "ecosystem" came from. Nothing fitted, so they called it "ecosystem" ;-) Let's just write "Mer" and link to the Mer article. The people there can then decide to define what it is.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

First: all care about MeeGo, and all especially Jolla refers to MeeGo as a standard, not the Merproject. X11 and text console nowadays is treated more as magic tools for geeks and devs then a factors of any Linux distribution. Second the Merproject has never published any thing called "the Mer Linux distribution". The only deliver essential libraries of OS core for vendors mostly. We can't call "the core distribution" any "Linux distribution" because this is not what it is - please ask the Mer developers for further details if you are not sure about this, rather then me as they are more competent. Also we can't just wikilink to Mer article as it is not actual and still refers to beginnings with Maemo, which is true but not actual and not adequate from quite a long time. People at Mer can't decide what Jolla is doing, and this the article about Jolla, and Jolla clearly state what they are going to do and what names for products and technologies the want to use. They are aware and not limited in their decisions, what must be reflected in the article here, as wikipedia is based on facts confirmed by sources, not on suppositions and interpretations only. Besides when you are not sure what is MeeGo, what is Mer, what are relations between then better would be to read more about it (sources are easy to find) and this way to find a better perspective and understanding.

The Mer is not a successor of MeeGo, in terms of succession the Tizen is successor of MeeGo only. And artificial discussion will not make the Mer neither a successor of MeeGo nor any Linux distibution. IMHO.

The core (here) is set of low level libraries, which are to allow to launch the linux with this core on several hardware chips of several suppliers, to work with several hardware types, to be optimised for mobile use (MeeGo), to implement several techniques, tools, routines which are in total to establish a commonly and easy accessible and easy to use standard for interested parties which is to enable to build on this core the full Linux, which will follow the MeeGo standards including APIs among others. Note that this allow low level libraries around kernel to be developed, debugged, perfected, polished etc. while still MeeGo main frames will be respected and keep - what allow to combine Mer core with other elements by other parties.

MeeGo ecosystem comes from a need. This is the open source community of interested in MeeeGo from companies, freelancers, software devs, hardware manufacturers, customers influencing on system development, and others. In general an ecosystem is a part of market formed by interested in a particular product, or family of products. It allows easier communications and quicker understanding, and allow not to create artificial differentiation on customer and company, which not reflect relations currently observed (eg. customers in role of partners of companies changing/developing produts, not only as customers). Ocexyz (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mer is Linux, and Jolla's OS can't be called simply "MeeGo"

First of all, let's clarify a few things, to avoid unnecessary edits. Firstly, Mer is Linux. See the corresponding entry: Mer_(operating_system) and this argument can be closed. Second of all, putting in summary that Jolla's product is MeeGo Linux devices is invalid (see all the discussion above). One can't call their product MeeGo. All the reasons were already explained before. Inherited from MeeGo (through Mer) is correct, but Jolla's OS is not MeeGo. If anyone has doubts about it, please contact Linux Foundation to get their explicit statement that Jolla's OS is MeeGo, and then reference that as a proof. The burden of proof according to Wikipedia lies on those who propose some statement in the article (WP:BURDEN). Those who propose calling Jolla's OS "MeeGo" need to bring evidence and proof to that. I already brought enough proof that Jolla's OS is factually based on Mer. --Bahaltener (talk) 02:29, August 12 2012 (UTC).

NO. Please provide a link with confirmtion that Jolla OS is based solely on the Mer. Vrifiable sources confirms that Jolla is "based on MeeGo with Mer core" and no meter how you interpret what Mer is or not is, still this is verifiable fact. But Jolla OS based on Mer is only overinterpretation or interpretation and just a burden. Besides this is against the Mer project which is established and continued by MeeGoists. That lead to unnecessary falsification. Please provide link to confirm your interpretations.

There is no confirmation that in final product the Mer will be a core, perhaps a new core will be used. Or a pure Meego only. So you can't make fake of "based on Mer" especially as there is no way that only Mer could be used, as it does not allow any device to function properly without elements above the core. Nowadays nobody treats core with text console and without user interfaces as legitimate linux distribution. A years ago a computer was a machine with cards with wholes and printer but without any keyboard nor monitor. Following logic used in above discussion - would u assume such a machine cn be treated currently as computer for common consumer? If not then why do you want to treat this way Mer, which is core - only the part of system, and you do it AGINST intentions of Mer creators, and aginst the idea that created the Mer project. With sentence "Mer based" you suggest that user are to use the Mer as a full system and look for Mer software what is not true, as the MeeGo software will be used. You provide a serious confusion. And this is not to clarify an article but only to disturb in work on it. Mer is only the core, subelement of system and can't be identified here as a whole system driving product, even if you treat it as Linux because it has text console. Good for you, use text console nd X-es to make phone calls and pick up calls and use contacts ad write sms and make a picture or video with camera or to browse internet or to instal and use downloaded software for smartphone - this is not any reasonable POV, and technical solution rather for damaged minds. Possible but not probable in practice. So why do you insist on something what is not true in the article? And what is not confirmed in sources. And what is against used commonly terminology and used commonly consensus? You make with this a mess and info chaos - are you aware of this?

Mer was established for building devices, not to establish a linux distibution so a text console was helpful. Ocexyz (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the "Mer core" definition in the Mer project - end of silly discussions

If you want to create wikipedia article please provide sources and knowledge not any over interpretations as in above discussion are IMHO.

The Merproject defines the term "core" in this project and this is easy to access by everybody who want to access it and it says CLEAR DEFINITION: "(...)mer-core

Mer core contains a minimal set of packages which will allow a Mer system to boot to a multi-user, console level system without basic networking.(...)" here https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Kickstart_groups.

Hence phrase "with use the Mer core" mean to use of above clearly defined portion of software and I claim you can't treat this as a full Linux, you make over interpretations with "Mer based" when "MeeGo" is deleted - this is simply not true. Could you make this to drive any product with all features and functionalities? NO! and once again NO! The core is the core, it is as defined above, for manufacturers development purposes, and manufacturer has right to use what they want to use and what you think they will use is quite unimportant at all. If you want to make a change again please provide link with confirmation in source as a pvove of fact.

Jolla declare OS to be "MeeGo based with Mer core" and "Mer core" is defined above by the Merproject itself without any doubts, what in my opinion is confirmed fact with sources. And not any anonymous graphic can change it. I say you are not to change this in article unless you will provide a verifiable facts confirmed with linked sources. Can you agree with me that this is according to wikipedia rules? Can you?

And I think that until the Jolla smartphone will be launched and fully declare what it is, until then the "MeeGo based with Mer core" phrase is reasonable consensus, mentioning both in the way which can be confirmed with sources. And, sorry don't treat this personal, you opinions on what the Mer is, Linux distribution or not, are irrelevant in this particular case. As you don't use sources, are not aware of meaning and definition of used terms, and this in total is against Wikipedia rules IMHO. This is wast of time. Ocexyz (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why we can't treat the Mer project as "Linux distribution" used as "Jolla's OS"

This section is because I would like to provide arguments for this POV. This implies from what the Mer is in fact, and it doesn't meter what is written in other products like Vivaldi or Cordia descriptions.

The source of below quotations is the Merproject itself from here: https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Main_Page I have added some my comments directly in text.

"Mer aims to be a FOSS, inclusive, meritocratically governed and openly developed Core optimised for HTML5/QML/JS, providing a mobile-optimised base distribution for use by device manufacturers. Mer is based upon the work from the Core section of the MeeGo project and aims to share effort and code together with the Tizen project once Tizen tools and code are publicly available." - Note that Mer identifies itself as Core, as above, not any Linux distributions. So calling it a Linux operating system distribution is a fake and misinformatvive. Note that "MeeGo core section" is not the same "Mer core" and this difference must be noticed to avoid mistakes.

"We have some clear goals:

   To be openly developed and governed as a meritocracy -- see Governance for details
   That the primary customers of the platform are device vendors – not end-users. info
   To have a device manufacturer oriented structure, processes and tools: make life easy for them
   To provide a device oriented architecture, see Architecture for details
   To be inclusive of technologies (such as MeeGo/Tizen/Qt/EFL/HTML5)
   To innovate in the mobile OS space 

" - Note in above goals there is nothing like "Linux distribution" so any claims "Mer is Linux distribution" are irrelevant and not with the project goals and may lead to serious mistakes. Mer is the project for clearly defined purposes, and building Linux distribution as a product of this project is now NOT among them. Mer is to build new products, including Linux distributions, with use of the Mer as base, raw material, like core, for this purposes. Wikipedia should not generate neither virtual truths or lies nor virtual things.

The project clearly says to end users what they can expect and do:

"End Users

If you want to install and use Mer on a device then you probably need a product built on Mer. There are actually a few to choose from already:

   Nemo Mobile
   Plasma Active
   Cordia 

" - so this clearly says there is not any Mer linux distribution to be used by end users, and this also is Jolla's case - there is not any "the Mer Linux" which could be used directly as Jolla OS. I underline this as editions says "based on Mer operating system" are fakes. There is not the Mer in form of full operating system, Mer is the raw material to bulid operating systems, and which systems will be most probably MeeGo Linux family members. You can't put in Wikipedia "Mer operating system" in the way against this term is used in project. And how, what for, what implies of this used by Merproject metodology. I want to show you that with "Mer operating system" you introduce mess and chaos, also missinformation and fake into Wikipedia. Project directs users to full systems of Linux, so distributions, which are mentioned above Nemo Mobile, Plasma Active, Cordia. You ought to get more familiar with exact meaning of terms, names and relations between them all, which are extremely specific for open software. Please note FOSS and consequences of this.

Mer offers specific benefits for vendors, not for end users and seems you don't get where is the difference and why. Eg.: The "MeeGo core section" is not the "Mer core". And such things are the reasons why you make meritocratic mistakes and try to prove NOT-existing "Mer Linux" to be a product for endusers. ;) Also the reasons are in that you are not considering that Mer don't have resources to provide full Linux distro, and this is not needed at all. They work on entirely different things at all. Is this more clear now? I did my best.

If you have read all this you are very patient and kind, thank you ;)

I hope I have shown why your editions like "Mer operating system based" are not adequate. Please consider this. Ocexyz (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Real, based on facts, example of Linux system distribution which uses Mer as core.

As a lot of time was wasted for discussion about not existing "Mer Linux distribution" here is the example of real Linux distribution in this context. Nemo Mobile is a Linux distribution for mobile devices. Nemo uses Mer as core and the UX is based on MeeGo Handset UX. The Nemo Mobile project continues the work started in the MeeGo Community Edition to create open community driven OS and apps. Currently initial Nemo port exists for Nokia N900 and N950 devices. Work is on-going to support Nokia N9. There is also some support for x86 based tablets/netbooks like ExoPC. And Jolla'OS will be more or less the same. Separate and independent Jolla Mobile will be a Linux distribution for mobile devices, based on MeeGo with use of Mer core, so in other words will use Mer core and Jolla own UX based on MeeGo. Please don't insist on "Mer Linux" as this is not true, the Mer project provides source code and libraries for building product's system or Linux distributions like Nemo Mobile or Jolla Mobile. I hope now this should be obvious and proved that "Mer Linux" either as distribution or in role of Jolla's system is a fake, Mer is the core (defined in section above), and source code to be used with other elements to build Jolla's system based on MeeGo with Mer core. What was to be proved. Please provide sourced facts with links for different POV, and before introducing such POV into article, please. Discussion is welcome. Editions introducing not proved and not true elements which are speculations and over interpretations not based from sourced facts are against Wikipedia rules IMHO. Please take this under considerations carefully. Ocexyz (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The time is wasted on insistence that Mer is not a distribution, that Mer is not Linux, and that Jolla isn't based on Mer or is even based on MeeGo (as supposedly opposed to Mer). You didn't provide concrete proofs for your claims though, with others providing proofs in the other direction. I'll invite Mer architects to join the discussion, since it's probably the only way to end this up. And just to repeat what Jolla said about Mer and Meego (explicitly): From the start yes, Jolla OS core is based on #merproject deliverables... #MeeGo is the name people know and love. #merproject is the core OS project name.. So here you have it. Jolla is based on Mer, and Mer is the core OS. Nothing more to add here until Jolla will publish their detailed architecture documentation.

To clarify more about Mer - Mer ships core packages, with kernel, hw adaptation and UI part being left for vendors to fill in. Mer is intended to be used to build a Linux OS. Therefore Mer derivatives can be called based on Mer Core Linux. Mer itself is not an end user distribution - it's a meta distribution, intended for OS creators. Definition of distribution doesn't require it to be end user product. It's a broader and more generic term. No one in the discussion said that Mer is intended for end users, so you are arguing with no one, repeating the same thing over and over. With Mer being a core, there is nothing wrong to say that Jolla is based on Mer Core Linux. For the sake of verifiability though, may be it's advisable to wait until Jolla will publish concrete documents about all the components of their upcoming system. --Bahaltener (talk) 18:03, August 12 2012 (UTC)

* That is correct, with only one but: most of users (all but a few devs) understand under "Linux distribution" the distribution for end users. My claim is that used terminology must be compatible with commonly used. And for this reason Mer project describes itself as "core distribution". Under used by you terms most of common readers will understand "there is the Mer Linux distribution for end user" which is not true. This is clear and obvious implication of content from wiki of the Mer project IMHO.

* And just to repeat what Jolla said about Mer and Meego (explicitly) on 2012-08-10: "(question:) Titanium ‏@titaniumct @JollaMobile With official #qt on #android is it possible an android based JollaOS for the ecosystems concerned & the mer based for purists? (answer:) Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @titaniumct Our OS is #MeeGo based. " source: https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/233956634773291008 - I think this is direct source. And for me this more then strange to write against source. Jolla is the architect of Jolla product, please remember about it. And note; if Jolla would not mention Mer, it was mentioned in one place only and I have put this into the article, whole this discussion would not have happened. You want to prove something on the basis of Mer while this is the article about Jolla. And the picture must be clear, not only proper and politically correct. Please provide reliable and verifiable source which says "Jolla OS is Mer based, not MeeGo based" - then you have an argument for your POV. How you treat Mer or any part of Mer is irrelevant, this is Jolla product but not the Mer product. Is this clear enough declaration that above "(...) Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @titaniumct Our OS is #MeeGo based. (...)" or this is not clear?? What is precisely your opinion Bahaltener about this? Can you and me understand this words in 2 different ways? And can really this be understood as confirmation that "Jolla OS is Mer based"? I don't know what else an argument I could use, really.

* Please note that the article must be understood by most of users, this is not about chemistry of thermonuclear reactions but about simple popular and common Linux.

* Also please note that software for the smartphone will be MeeGo compatible. And also there are no commonly known Mer software, in the way like MeeGo software. Hence we can't misinform users IMHO.

* "For the sake of verifiability though, may be it's advisable to wait until Jolla will publish concrete documents about all the components of their upcoming system." I agree, but it can wait with "MeeGo based with Mer core" description as many sources so, and if anything else would occur it can be changed after verification. This is more logical for me. Ocexyz (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why "MeeGo based" is proper description or why not

This is to gather in one place sources for and against "MeeGo based", as articles are to be based on sources. I agree this ought to be verified with product launching but until then still there ought to be something what can be consensus. Please provide links to sources which can confirm "MeeGo based" is legitimate or not, and what it says. I understand that Mer is further development and this is MeeGo Reconstructed and unquestionably step forward, but still Jolla has decided to stay with MeeGo. I think the article ought to respect this. Please add links for your arguments. (verifiable sources, not only suppositions or speculations)

Arguments pro:

• "Together with international private investors and partners, Jolla Ltd. will design, develop and sell new MeeGo based smartphones." http://www.linkedin.com/company/2649185 Ocexyz (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Jolla continues Nokia's excellent work on #MeeGo based smartphones together with the #N9 core professionals and #MeeGo community alumni." https://twitter.com/jollamobile Ocexyz (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Jolla Mobile will launch an online app store featuring MeeGo software to back up the release of its first smartphone later this year." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/364288/20120718/jolla-mobile-launch-app-store-angry-birds.htm Ocexyz (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• "(question:) The software you are working on will be called Jolla OS. Is that MeeGo with your user interface placed on top of it?

(Jolla's answer:) To put it shortly and simply that is what it will be." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/365808/20120723/jussi-hurmola-interview-meego-jolla-mobile-ceo.htm Ocexyz (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Arguments contra:

• "

Sorry, just saw that now, I made a similar attempt, however I have the opinion that the discussion times are over. We cannot agree and/or cant understand each others argumentations. For example I dont understand your sentence above when you write: "I understand that Mer is further development and this is MeeGo Reconstructed and unquestionably step forward, but still Jolla has decided to stay with MeeGo." To me that sounds simply like you want to say that Jolla will use the (old) Meego from 2011 and not use Mer at all. In the end it is all about the open source approach and the usage of the Qt-libraries, nothing else. In 2011 Meego was the umbrella term for that, but you cannot use it any longer because the term "Meego" has other consequences, too, like UI and other libraries. As it is said in the Mer wiki: --- As such, in the transformation of MeeGo to Mer, only packages and dependencies that served a practical purpose for the criteria of booting up to a Xorg+Qt qmlviewer with connectivity and ability to expand upon that was left in. This meant a much smaller set of packages were put together and hence your favourite package will probably not be part of Mer.

---

https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Architecture#Mer_Architecture

But I assume that you wont be able to understand my point either, thus lets forget that and just vote and then go on.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't ever said or mean that Jolla will use only the (old) Meego from 2011 and not use Mer at all - this is not true at all. I'd like to remind that it was I who introduced Mer into the article, what I hope exclude such a possibility. MeeGo has created standard. "Smaller set of packages" is exactly the reason why Mer itself is a raw material not a full distribution, the core. But those not included and supposed to be attached by a particular system builder ought to follow rules declared with MeeGo, eventually changed/established with Mer. Or smaller cause reconstructed, put together for IT and technical reasons, hence better working, better playing their role. This was exactly the achievement of Mer: focus on important part to deliver soft for building distribution for particular device. From the other aspect: this allows backward compatibility and make porting apps easier eg. look at Tizmee software. This is not about amount of code but also about it's quality and rules and meaning for developers, all together combined. It was done for purpose, for reconstructing MeeGo and set directions for further development with meritocratic governance. And also you should consider all this with background of Harmattan, Tizen, Meltemi, Nemo, Plasma and other important factors. And use of Mer does not exclude use of MeeGo code, even "good old dead MeeGo" in this number, or other technologies and innovations etc. IMHO. Ocexyz (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Meego <> Mer summary ....

Ok guys this is starting to get annoying. Therefore I try to summarize, luckily we only have two POVs:

a) Jolla is using/based on Mer (whatever it is called now (Linux / core / distribution / etc. I personally don't care, even if the Mer article is outdated it is not our problem). (Edit: My current favorite is "Linux stack" see: https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_Mer.2C_and_how_can_I_learn_more_about_it.3F)

b) Jolla is using/based on Meego

Party a) argues with: From the start yes, Jolla OS core is based on #merproject deliverables... #MeeGo is the name people know and love. #merproject is the core OS project name

Party b) argues with: Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @titaniumct Our OS is #MeeGo based

Obviously both statements are contradicting each other. I out myself as a member of party a) the reason is that imo Meego is an outdated description for a collection of libraries. The smallest or maybe most important denominator are the #qt libraries. Mer uses it, Meego uses it therefore the similarities and naming chaos. It is nothing more. This is also the problem of that statement:

The Mer is not a successor of MeeGo, in terms of succession the Tizen is successor of MeeGo only

Technically Tizen is not the succesor of Meego because it lacks Qt. Politically however, Tizen was baptized to be the successor by the involved companies after Nokia left meego and intel went on to do sth. else. However "politics" have nothing to do with a WP article we are only here for stating facts and that goes down to the libraries.

However, it seems the discussion is getting nowhere. Thus we have to "vote" it out. Anybody who has edited the article until now can vote for either POV. The winning party is allowed to change the main article to their POV, the loosing party is allowed to write a special section "critics" as suggested by Ocexyz above.

I don't want to have anybody else to be able to vote because of fraud and spam risk by new users like Lumialover. Furthermore, we - who are responsible for the article - are doing the work and should thus decided ourselves and not be governed by anybody else with less knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Almöhi (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There was also an uncommented try for compromise above, I guess it was overseeen, thus I repeat it here again:

Jolla OS is based on Mer and continues the work which was started by MeeGo" Could that maybe be a compromise? If we agree on that then we can skip the vote, but I am not very optimistic that we will be able to compromise without the voting.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is nonsense as Jolla use MeeGo and use Mer, this is against facts, so voting is pointless. The base are sources, not any voting. And this voting don't lead to anywhere, perhaps only to create bigger conflict about nothing. As options are not reflecting reality, they only reflects artificial antagonism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocexyz (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Meego <> Mer Votes

/********************************************************************************************************/

                          ONLY VOTES HERE, 
                 please use the "Meego <> Mer summary" section for discussions.

Rules:
- Voting time ends on: 31th August 2012
- Only previously editors of the Jolla article are eligible for votes, everybody's comments are welcome in the discuss section
- state your vote for either a) or b) (see above for information) and sign your vote.
- The vote is valid until Jolla publishes more technical details
/********************************************************************************************************/

Vote for a) from: --Dark Almöhi (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Vote for a) from: --Bahaltener (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets talk about consensus again

I propose a consensus in following form: "Smartphone (mobile device) with Jolla Mobile Linux based on MeeGo and Mer open source codes and achievements.".

Your proposal of consensus Dark Almöhi was a good try, however I think any attempt to put one of them (MeeGo or Mer) one over another will lead to troubles.

So perhaps until it can be verified with launched product specs they ought to be treated equally, w/o deliberating on origins, relations etc. I think they are explained clearly in text, can be perfected there more, and meanwhile we can use "Jolla Mobile Linux" to describe this system. This idea corresponds with Nemo Mobile Linux which use the same practise.

And "Jolla Mobile Linux" is true description, even if finally with first smartphone would occur something not predicted. Can this work as a consensus? Even temporary one?

Of course in the meanwhile we can vote and gather links. (According on Wikipedia rules I think the circle of voters can't be limited as it was proposed above, as that could be a kind of discrimination IMHO. Also that would be irrational as Lumialover can be any of us.) The key and Wikipedia routine is to find acceptable consensus, not to find who is stronger/lauder. IMHO.

What are things we do agree about OS:

- this is Jolla's own Linux

- it will have Jolla's own UI/UX

- it is mobile

- based on MeeGo

- based on Mer (as using Mer core)

- discussion about MeeGo vs. Mer is pointless or senseless

- there is no MeeGo vs Mer, as they are parts of the same puzzles

- Mer is MeeGo Reconstructed and next step of in evolution of MeeGo idea, opened for innovations like Tizen, Nemo and others.

- Source code in the Mer is significantly changed then the original MeeGo code, in many aspects and details (otherwise there could not be any development)

We don't agree about:

- Jolla Mobile OS can be either MeeGo based or Mer based system only, but not based on both

- what is linux distribution

- what is core distribution

- what exactly Jolla's OS will be (besides it will be Linux)

- what is MeeGo and Mer role in context of Jolla's product

- Qt is not the only one difference

- Jolla many times in many places with many occasions describes Jolla's Linux as MeeGo based, what makes legit use of "MeeGo based" in article

- Jolla use "MeeGo" name with full awareness, and in legitimate way

- This is quite possible Jolla's Linux will be finally called "MeeGo Something" with full acceptation by Linux Foundation, and the Mer core will be used still.

What was not discussed but what I believe is true:

- Jolla team is made of MeeGo creators themselfs

- Jolla team promised to present better then swipe-UI owned by Nokia (as they have invented it, this can be reached I think)

- Jolla has licensed some unknown now number of patents/licences/parts of code from Nokia

- Nokia role is undefined with all this still, we may not know the whole story behind. Ocexyz (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your compromise effort, but we tried that nearly for 2 weeks and I dont see any improvement. You want to keep the Meego name for the upcoming product, I want it only for historical references, like "continuing Meego's work". Today we had another information from the twitter account:

Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @luissoeiro Jolla OS is running on #merproject core, yes.

Could that change your POV in any way?--Dark Almöhi (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Another reference from Jolla about Mer: https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/232357978509037568 It's clear from the sources that technically they are based on Mer. Refereces to MeeGo were not of technical nature, but of casual/marketing talk --Bahaltener (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Jolla Mobile OS is "using/running on Mer core" and is "MeeGo based OS" - in the same time. I don't have any problem with this, as this is obvious implication from MeeGo history. One does not exclude second one. But my overview on role of those elements is different then yours. Mer is more about low level, kernel, drivers, keep it running in hardware aspects, free core for assembly a Linux system, the standard in this area. MeeGo is more about whole mobile Linux system, the set of rules and standard covering all aspects of system. Also this is used in tablets, netbooks, IVI etc. already, and in mobiles where it mutated into Harmattan (Maemo5) or Meltemi or Tizen.

Please follow both tweets as both are important, quote them carefully and with source. Fist one:

"Luis Soeiro ‏@luissoeiro @JollaMobile Please include community #foss repositories and allow everybody to tinker (if wanted) with it. Provide uptodate drivers #sucess

Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @luissoeiro Thanks, you might want to check out #merproject if you have not yet.

Luis Soeiro Luis Soeiro ‏@luissoeiro @JollaMobile Are you mer-based? If so, congratulations, but please try to keep the user free from locked bootloaders or locked roms. #meego

Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @luissoeiro Jolla OS is running on #merproject core, yes. " https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/233958393604354048

and Second one:

Titanium ‏@titaniumct @JollaMobile With official #qt on #android is it possible an android based JollaOS for the ecosystems concerned & the mer based for purists?

Jolla Jolla ‏@JollaMobile @titaniumct Our OS is #MeeGo based. " https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/233956634773291008

Please note well that this is true in the same time, in the same product. And note carefully that this is declaration of Jolla, where team contains most of (if not all) MeeGo creators from Nokia. I mean that when they say "Based on MeeGo and using Mer core" then they are aware what they say. Also they have view into Jolla Mobile OS and know what it is exactly. You want to prove it is Mer only - what can't be true because of technical limitations of Mer. I can't see problem with using MeeGo staff together with Mer core. The question is how to express that. So I have proposed as consensus "Jolla Mobile OS based on MeeGo and Mer" or more proper "Mer core".

Running on Mer core does not exclude being MeeGo based IMHO.

Ocexyz (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote:

         Running on Mer core does not exclude being MeeGo based IMHO.

In that case, it is easy. If it does not exclude Meego, then you have to be able to define the "Meego base" easily. If you cannot do that, then "running on Mer" excludes Meego. Can you do it?--Dark Almöhi (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Mer architect confirmed, that Jolla is based on Mer, and not on Meego (as in Meego project, which is abandoned now). However for documentary proofs we'll have to wait until Jolla will publish their design documentation. So for now we'll stick with resolving the temporary result with the vote. Concrete result will be updated as soon as Jolla will publish something detailed besides unverifiable Twitter statements. -- Bahaltener (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@Dark Almöhi: Yes this is easy, and here you have what you asked for: The MeeGo base is everything what is not included in the Mer core and the MeeGo base is almost all, if not all, what comes with Mer as the Mer is based on MeeGo and developing it from time of "MeeGo Reconstructed" discussion with participation of important developers and community members, as this is the same community in significant part. And please have in mind that Mer is also MeeGo Reconstructed, there is nothing like Mer vs MeeGo conflict, this conflict is only in your mind. Those are cooperating communities, and I don't know what you intend to prove.

Easy: Jolla is running on Mer and anything else is part of their own Jolla OS. It might have been part of Meego once upon a time, but that only has historical value. The future projects are Mer Core and Jolla OS, the past was Meego. Yes I have in mind that "Mer is Meego reconstructed", but who cares? Again, it has only historical value. Now you suddenly talk about "cooperating communities", so you mean there is a Mer community and a Meego community? If so - what is the difference between the 2? Obviously there is no difference it is one Linux/qt-using community for mobile devices. The whole discussion is only here, because you personally don't want to see that the Meego name goes away and therefore you clinch on it like it is an old, dear memorable. Maybe another example: I am using Libre Office. Not many of my Windows-using friends know that term, all of them use MSOffice. Therefore, I tell them, that I am using Open-office. At least they know that term, they heard it once, and get the picture more or less. However, that approach is useful only for casual talks but totally unsatisfactory for an encyclopedia. Jolla even stated that they use the Meego-name in a similar matter as in my case with the office software: Only for convenience. The twitter source was several times posted, but you ignore it and instead just post other twitter-lines which say "meego-based" "meego-based". However, all of them are invalidated by the information that they only use the term "Meego" for convenience only. There is no technical reason. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Bahaltener: Don't you think you should have linked confirmation from Jolla architect rather? The Mer architect not necessary have any insight into Jolla Mobile OS, which can be even Jolla MeeGo Mobile finally - how can you deny this will happen? Can you? A confirmation for Wikipedia is only linked source, sorry this is only speculation, besides there are no traces or proves of such confirmation, and how you ask question determine what is the answer. And here we comes near to manipulation. For this reason you need a link to source with confirmation. Above you have section with links to confirmations. Place there your link with confirmation of your thesis. Unless you can't the version confirmed by sources and verified with several secondary sources is valid, but not any voting. Everybody can organise a voting and because of voting effects declare we live in matrix and the Wikipedia does not exist. Following your logic I can write that an mysterious architect has confirmed that Mer is not at all in code. And value of this confirmation will be of the same quality: no link, no source, no secondary source, no prove, no verifiable fact.

Second pillar = Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Burden of evidence from Wikipedia:Verifiability

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

I have copied this here temporally to show you that you had already and now still have a time to find confirmation of your thesis according to above rules. The situation now is that without this, it is legitimate to clean the article, no meter what you vote or not vote. However I want to find a consensus. But I think until you think there is any conflict MeeGo vs Mer or a rivalisation, while there is cooperation and supporting each other as much as possible, you will not make any progress and finally the article will have to be cleaned unless new sources would occur. Do you got my point? So lets back to cooperation and leave a war path please, as it lead to nowhere. Even bad discussion is better then any good war - can we agree with this? Respect others if you want to be respected. And provide link to reliable sources for confirmation, don't ask me to look for anything you need. I have done my work, you can organise your's. Ocexyz (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is here on war and with whom? I asked for a vote not for a war. But please lets not start a vote <> war definition-discussion now. I am already tired. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no point in further arguments until documentation will be published. You can present your vote. In any case, for verifiable documentary sources one needs to wait. --Bahaltener (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by verifiable documentary sources, but we have to work based on the reliable sources that are currently available. Those say that Jolla OS is based on MeeGo. Even if documentation was available, Wikipedians doing research on it would not trump the reliable sources. The additional info provided by Jolla themselves about them taking advantage of the Mer core does not trump the reliable sources either, it just adds technical detail. As far as I know, "X is based on Y" has no precise technical meaning, so let's not be picky about it in the introductory paragraph and let's use more concrete phrases in the technical subsection when we know more. --TuukkaH (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

See the various statements above, yes they say that it is based on meego, but they also they that they only use the name for convenience, not for technical reasons. The whole thing is basically just a marketing problem. If we could come up with another name like "Linux system with a collection of libraries needed for mobile use, e.g. Qt, Alsa, GNU utilities, etc. then I would be veeeeeery happy. But that is already a full sentence ... --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I saw your idea above again, maybe we really should agree on "GNU/Linux". If somebody wants to add a "continuing the work started by Meego" subclause I would be fine with it, as long it does not say "based on" I am fine. That is for the introduction section, then later in the software part we have to go into details. But one step after another --Dark Almöhi (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have an opportunity to read rules I have pasted above. All is about sourced facts. Then only you can comment marketing, vote, add GNU etc. For mysterious reason you have an alergy on MeeGo. But Jolla has clearly declared they are going to build MeeGo system, and they have chosen MeeGo vs Android and other systems. Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts and sources aviable now. There has been proposed a compromise or a consensus. You still try to stick with not sourced thesis, and want exclude MeeGo and replace it with Mer without any links nor compromise. This is slowing work and I think you can make a critic section and put there all sorrows, unless you will find sources. I want this to be finished as now this goes towards vandalism and edit wars. So please have in mind that not sourced speculations can be removed. Also because all this is waste of time. You have your personal preferences for Mer over MeeGo but this is not enough to remove sourced verifiable facts, whether you like them or not. I think I have asked you for source enough to be certain you know what I have asked for. Please remember about sources for confirmation. Ocexyz (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You dont have any source yourself, as I wrote in my longer paragraph above, which you have maybe not noted yet, any references to a "meego base" are invalidated by their previous comment that "#MeeGo is the name people know and love". Yes it is, but Wikipedia is not concerned about "love", we have to use facts and the fact is that Jolla is running on Mer and that the Meego project is dead. Just have a look at their webpage: https://meego.com/about/governance. Mr. Halla is not working for nokia any more as stated on the webpage. He is now working for intel. If he is still part of the steering group is doubtful. In the footer there is a link to Tizen. So why should I believe that Meego is "alive"? Because the website with outdated information is still accessible?

Please go on with your rules than, you will have to delete your own comments accordingly.I wont have a problem with that. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, newspapers (a reliable secondary source) saying "based on meego" is not invalidated by any Twitter comment (self-published primary source). It's original research (going against what Wikipedia is) to infer from the Tweet quoted or from the belief that meego be dead that all the sources for "based on meego" be false. --TuukkaH (talk)

I agree with TuukkaH that core is technical detail. I am affraid we ought to use WP rules for this or we will have endless discussion about nothing. The Jolla is in power to decide what they use, and they will do what they will want - and this will be proper content for article IMHO. Ocexyz (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No they are not, they dont have rights to use the Meego brand. Thus, there will never be an official statement including Meego - but ok, there is the possibility to buy the rights. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not just a technical - it's a factual detail. Really Jolla created this mess with their marketing ideas and overusage of word MeeGo, so it's up to them to clean it up. This question will be sent to them from the community, so we need to wait for the answer. -- Bahaltener (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Even the first official press release from Jolla said "MeeGo based". Wikipedia editors aren't a brand police. And, even if Jolla stopped saying MeeGo based, they still would be MeeGo based unless they dropped all the derived work and reliable secondary sources (newspapers) reported on it. --TuukkaH (talk)

By the way, if you want to copy/paste wiki rules, this is the appropriate one:

Sources that are usually not reliable
(...)
Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

---

Especially check the bold marked word/sentence. As mentioned above their twitter messages are contradictory, thus we shouldn't use any of them. - In case you want to follow the rules. Now what do you want? Follow the rules and thus delete all Mer and Meego references altogether or have a fair, democratic vote where the loosing party still gets a "critics" subsection until Jolla releases some detailed architecture information? I thought this would be a fair idea, I for my part wouldn't complain if I loose, but you started speaking of "war". Seriously, we have a communication problem for sure.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, "doubt about authenticity" would mean we wouldn't believe that the Twitter messages are from Jolla Oy. And if we concluded that the Twitter messages be contradictory (- I wouldn't) and dropped them as a source, we'd still have the press release and all the news items that talk of MeeGo. --TuukkaH (talk)

Secondary sources of articles are not self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves, also this is not the case. MeeGo references are sourced not in tweeter, this is not the case. Sources are needed for confirmation. With link to MeeGo you provided you can find trademark policy and terms of use MeeGo as name of product. It doesn't meter if office is dead or alive, MeeGo source and name can be just used as stated there. Mer is used as a core so there is no need to remove it. The whole conception as "MeeGo is used for marketing purposes" is based on the single tweet - so that mean you want to abandon it in consequence I suppose. You want to play with emotions? What does this have to do with the article? With word "war" I mean this all does not help the article only is cause of waste of time. Mer is sourced as a core, to use it as a Linux you need source in context of Jolla. What will be not easy as Mer is the core distribution only in general, that's all. Ocexyz (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We dont have any secondary sources, we only have the twitter account. What are you talking about, the Meego page? That will hurt your own argumentation, everybody can see that Jolla wont be able to use the Meego brand. To be able to use the Meego brand, you have to follow the compliance rules strictly. For that purpose there are compliance specification documents. The last one is for Meego 1.2 and still labeled as "coming soon". I heard of a Meego 1.3 but it seems nobody could be compatible with that term as there is no compliance PDF. Thus, in the best case Jolla could be only Meego 1.2 compatible. But they twittered that they are running on Mer Core. Mer core doesn't use several of Meego core's packages. However, per compliance rules, *all* Meego core packages have to be available in a Meego system. If Jolla would use all of them they would clearly have written "running on Meego core" instead of "running on Mer core". Thus they cannot be 100% Meego compatible per compliance definitions. Last but not least, the compliance PDF is also a nice resource for definitions. My favorite is that one:

2.5.1  MeeGo API 
Implementations must support MeeGo API. The MeeGo API consists of the following: 
•  Qt 4.7  [Qt47]
•  Qt Mobility 1.0 [QtMob] 
•  OpenGL ES 2.0 [OGLES] 
Link: http://wiki.meego.com/images/MeeGo-Compliance-Spec-1.1.80.1.pdf

So now we have proof that the Meego is nothing else than GNU/Linux combined with QT, QT mobile and OpenGL ES. Thus I really don't see the need to keep the Meego name, besides (outdated) marketing reasons or for a historical reference in the detailed tech section. Thanks for explaining your meaning of "war" to me, at least your usage of that term is clear to me now. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we do have secondary sources: all the news articles about Jolla. The "proof" above is original research and not helpful in settling this disagreement. --TuukkaH (talk)

Those sources are not reliable. One has to be sure in their reliability (i.e. their access to technical details about Jolla) if they are to be used as a reference. -- Bahaltener (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are not reliable because you don't like them? Following that logic ALL wikipedia are not reliable at all, i.e. their access to technical details about subject of articles where they were used is not sure and not proved in most of cases. And only matrix is real for sure ;) Ocexyz (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

All the newspapers are just parroting Jolla's Meego reference of their Linkedin page. I dont know any source that tries to explain the "meego usage", if you have one please be so kind and post it, then I would happily agree. Jolla is using the name Meego obviously for marketing purposes. Nobody knows Jolla, yet; however, everybody knows Meego. I only care about technical information, not about marketing speech. The technical site is that Jolla OS is running on Mer, which consists mainly of Qt and OpenGL, which once was called Meego API, but that was 2011. I am concerned about an extended blurriness. It seems the Meego term is used in various contexts with different meanings. The Meego API, the Meego community, the Meego project, the Meego specifications, the Meego hardware, the Meego brand, the Meego name, the Meego programmers, the Meego UX, the Meego core etc. If people use the Meego term they maybe refer to only one context, or maybe to several or maybe even to all of them. But you never know which one the writer y had in mind when he wrote it, or what the reader x will understand when he reads it. It is a simple semantic problem. If you have information in simple contexts, like e.g. "I ate an apple", or "I programmed yday on my apple", it is clear that "apple" has very different meanings. However, the sentence "I bought an apple yesterday" is not clear. It could be both a fruit or a computer. To be able to solve that problem, we need a larger context, like a full conversation or a chat log. However, we do not have that in the Meego case. Especially if we use the term in the introduction section, nobody knows what we are referring to. It could be all or nothing. Therefore, because of all the inherent ambiguities, I want to omit to use the term as much as possible, because I fear that the uninformed reader will be confused. Furthermore a Wikipedia article should be as clear as possible and not foster confusion or ambiguity. Out of the same reason I also dislike the term "based on". Even though it may not have to really mean "based on x technologically", we cannot rule out the possibility that readers will interpret it as "technologically based on". Hence we shouldn't use it and be as precise as possible. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree - exactly because of ambiguity and confusion around the Meego name, and because of its common usage for marketing purposes, it should be used as little as possible unless strictly necessary as in referring to Meego project explicitly. Especially since that project can be considered frozen by the Linux Foundation. There are no doubts that technically Jolla is based on Mer. Currently we are trying to figure out whether Jolla is technically based on some parts of the Meego project which are not in Mer and that's what they mean by "Meego based", or they say it not out of technical reasons. There is no information available now to clarify this question solidly. Newspapers are not a reliable source, since they are quoting same ambiguous things that Jolla said regarding Meego and which we are trying to clarify. -- Bahaltener (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Only you have problems with MeeGo apparently. There is no such status as frozen by Linux Fundation - you can take it and develop on your own in any moment, this is glory of open source, and neither Linux Fundation nor anybody else could stop you from this - the best example is Mer. Still you try to not to see that Mer is MeeGo family and MeeGo ecosystem. Technically this is just a version of MeeGo. But you still trying to find a way to call it a linux and not-MeeGo, but still this is MeeGo Reconstructed. You are looking what mean "MeeGo based" while you are not looking for what mean "Mer based" - this is just a question of your personal preferences for newer version of MeeGo using name Mer. And yes, Mer core is used, this based on MeeGo of course. Am I right? Ocexyz (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with Meego. While there is no such formal status as frozen, there is a de-facto situation as Linux Foundation abandoning the project in favor of Tizen (they explicitly said it on their site). I call this frozen to be clear. (And I already explained that it doesn't mean the drop of support for existing deployment, it means no further development). If you are confused by the situation and think that LF still invests into developing Meego project into the future, you are free to contact them to clarify your doubts, however there are enough announcements from them already which state it clearly. Mer continues part of the work from the Meego project, and explicitly uses a different name to avoid any conflict with Linux Foundation. If you are continuously and confusingly refer to Mer as "Meego" that's up to you, but that's not acceptable for Wikipedia given the current situation of two distinct projects - Meego (managed by LF and frozen) and Mer (managed by Mer architects and developers and being actively developed). -- Bahaltener (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Usage of MeeGo by Jolla is question of Jolla work. You can ask them for further details. And in the same way for further details about used Mer core. Who knows who - is not relevant for Wikipedia, and can change also. The context of used term implies from citated source, which is source of verified fact. You don't have the same doubts about Mer, but only for MeeGo - I assume you have personal preferences and try to put them over neutral POV, what is not acceptable in this context for me. The fact is that Mer is a part of MeeGo ecosystem as a core used in various projects. And Mer is MeeGo Reconstructed. And Jolla is driven by direct MeeGo creators and co-creators. You either don't get it or have problem with fact that MeeGo is used and alive for significant number of users, is used for development despite some declared it is to be dead. And more, Jolla declared treat MeeGo as alive. Get more familiar with open source projects please. From FOSS and open sources implies that project as such does not need to be in active development or "alive" to enable to use it as whole or as a part in other project following open source rules and common proactise. This is the MeeGo ecosystem and if you will make more research you will easly find many who can explain this to you in details. Just sacrifice more time for this. Users exactly would be confused if would be used the low level detail, which is the Mer core, instead of used by manufacturer name of used Meego, which is commonly understood, - while even you have problems with proper understanding of what exactly is Mer and what for. "based on" comes from source and reflects Jolla intentions and Jolla's practice, we are to describe it, we are not to create virtual worlds. We are to be as precise as possible in use of facts confirmed with sources. Ocexyz (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Concrete response from Jolla about their usage of Meego name and relation to Mer

https://twitter.com/CreamyG31337/status/235779959652769792 Question: You said Jolla is MeeGo based. Is it through Mer or Jolla has MeeGo parts not from Mer? For Wikipedia where some are in doubt what you mean. Answer: We use #meego name as that is well known and loved. Jolla OS has #merproject core with other open source parts.. Can it be anymore clear now? To say it one more time: Jolla is based on Mer project. They aren't based on the Meego project (i.e. on any components of Meego not from Mer), but they use the Meego name because of its commonality (i.e. for marketing purposes). I doubt we'd get any better source until their system will have published documentation. -- Bahaltener (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So here we have yet another self-published statement from Jolla, and then personal thinking about what it might infer: "They aren't based on the Meego project." That's not a sourced, verifiable and notable point of view, as we don't find a reliable secondary source saying that. Even if this personal thinking were right, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to collect all the truths of the world, but instead to collect all the notable points of view of the world as they are verifiable in secondary sources (please see Wikipedia:Core content policies). Self-published information doesn't trump reliable secondary sources, and the sources disagreeing with you doesn't make them unreliable. --TuukkaH (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So if you don't consider the only close proximity source (Jolla's twitter channel) as reliable for information about "based on Mer", you can't consider it reliable for statements about "MeeGo based" as well. Be consistent. Any secondary source is surely less reliable. Therefore were are back to the point which Dark Almöhi brought up - this can't be resolved with confidence until further documents will surface up, therefore the temporary edition of the article will be determined by a vote. If you are interested - present your choice above. -- Bahaltener (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are considered more reliable in Wikipedia: they represent a neutral third party and in case of newspapers they have their journalistic skills and professional ethics. Wikipedia editors work by organising and summarising information from secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia doesn't work by voting, it works by seeking consensus among editors (please see Wikipedia:Consensus). --TuukkaH (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We didn't get consensus on this one, that's why the vote was proposed. No one accuses secondary sources in being non ethical, but they can't be more knowledgeable than Jolla themselves for a simple reason - they don't have any information except from the same source - Jolla. Therefore if you can show that someone claims to have more knowledge of the system some other way - that source could be considered better than Jolla's announcement. No secondary sources now claimed any documentary basis for info about Jolla OS. Also, those who want to put "Meego based" in the article as in contrast to "Mer based" (i.e. in addition like it is now) while bringing sources, at minimum need to find sources which highlight that difference (i.e. which claim that Jolla is using something from Meego that is not in Mer). So far no such sources (outside Jolla's twitter which already several times clarified what they mean) were even proposed in the discussion, and without such sources - the claim is non substantial. Sources in the other direction (i.e. that "Meego based" in Jolla's talk means through Mer) were already provided. -- Bahaltener (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are wrong, there are a source saying "[Jolla] we are taking/using some power elements from MeeGo which we know" - that was quoted from memory, so forgive me, but such was an essence of this material. And from context implies this is nothing connected anyhow with the Mer core. So there are sources, when I wil find this one I will provide a link in nearest future, but I don't know exactly when - forgive me please. Ocexyz (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't sufficient since that kind phrase says nothing about "not from Mer" part, and can as well mean MeeGo through Mer as in all other cases (which Jolla already clarified as I brought above). I.e. if you want to prove that Jolla has some parts from Meego that aren't in Mer (which would explain why there is a need to write based on Meego and on Mer), you have to bring explicit sources accordingly. -- Bahaltener (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, as Mer implies from MeeGo as a part of MeeGo with some further developments. Mer is totally based on MeeGo and is supporting MeeGo. I don't want to prove anything what is obvious and commonly known. Phrase based on Meego and on Mer has been used more to respect your preferences for Mer and obtain consensus, I don't need it as I know MeeGo and Mer, and how Mer as MeeGo Reconstructed support MeeGo as mobile Linux system. You still are trying to find or to create an artificial MeeGo vs. Mer situation, while there is cooperation between them. That is nothing interesting for me, you have a problem with understanding and recognise this situation. Ocexyz (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jolla has answered and confirmed that "Jolla OS has #merproject core" - what in fact confirms that use of phrase "with Mer core" is legitimate, now directly confirmed! And they have confirmed Jolla OS contains other things with following words: "with other open source parts." - what exactly confirm there are other "open source" staff and as MeeGo is open source staff you can't eliminate it because of phrase which confirms it is possible that it was used as open source project! That would be against (a) logical thinking (b) common sense (c) citated sources (d)this answer itself, as you have NOT obtained any answer like "we do not use MeeGo" what in fact was your intention, you have obtained confirmation that used is "Mer core" and "other open sources" and MeeGo is among them as pure open source - so, I see that entirely different than you want to see this answer. This is logic of a lawyer wanting to win a case by convincing judges but not any logic of wikipedia looking for neutral POV and verified facts, as you believe the implications are as you want them to be, instead to understood what they are in fact IMHO, no offence please we are talking only. Mer is part of MeeGo, low layer of MeeGo responsible of running kernel on a particular hardware, and this is purpose of development of Mer. As Mer is not a linux and do not comply fully requirements of MeeGo then can't use MeeGo name, but use acronym of MeeGo Reconstructed. If something use Mer core then by this fact it is "MeeGo based" - you try to avoid this fact. The Mer itself, as such, can't be used as a Linux, a text console is not considered as a Linux in context of any smartphone, so does not count here. The same way as only the 4 wheels and the engine does not make a car, and a car comfortable and ready to travel. The parts joining them together and using them are needed to build a car. This is the best visualisation of the discussed problem I can provide now I think. Core is core, Linux is Linux, open source is open source. I assume you haven't obtained confirmation of your thesis because of above arguments. You haven't proved in fact anything against current POV provided by sources, and confirmed by sources POV is still valid and legitimate. Can you at last get used to the fact that Mer is not against MeeGo, but Mer is supporting MeeGo with development of hardware libraries of the core and some other elements? That is the sense of MeeGo Reconstructed, to support MeeGo. Ocexyz (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for sophistry. Jolla was answering explicit question to clarify the confusion which caused all this lengthy discussion. And they tried to clarify it, saying that they use Meego name out of social/marketing factor ("everyone loves it"), why technically they are based on Mer, and other open source components. If they'd want to say based on something else from Meego - they'd say it right here, since that would clarify the very question that was asked. They didn't say it however. So you can't really speculate what those "other open source components" are, until Jolla will publish more info. If you insist that those other components are parts of Meego not from Mer, you need to bring proof. -- Bahaltener (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There are sources where it was stated, and which are legitimate for wikipeda. Jolla has answered you and I don't speculate what those "other open source components" are, I just point you that you can't deny with this answer that Jolla OS is MeeGo based and you must admit that "the Mer core" were used. I don't insist that those other components are parts of Meego not from Mer, I just shown you that this does not prove anything you would like to prove. MeeGo is open source, Mer is open source, and various other projects are open source. "MeeGo based" is legitimate after sources, "Mer core" the same, other parts also. You have some doubts about this but is does not change the situation. Your speculations don't change it, that's all. Ocexyz (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't insist that those other components are parts of Meego not from Mer - that's the main point. So now you agree that you can't say there are components from Meego & not from Mer in Jolla (unless you'll find sources for that). Then we are back to the question why there is a need to say in the summary based on Meego, when it's already saying based on Mer there. I state that there is no need for that in the summary since it creates ambiguity and confusion (because it will be understood "based on parts of Meego not from Mer, and on Mer"). As simple as that. The detailed relation anyway will be explained in the history/technology section. So the fact of inheritance from the historic Meego project through Mer won't be missed. -- Bahaltener (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is correct understanding of situation "based on parts of Meego not from Mer" and on "Mer" as a core, as Mer is not full Linux - and whole this together means it is based on MeeGo, because the MeeGo is source of the original code which was developed further. The MeeGo can't be omitted as the MeeGo is not inly a historical thing but a wider and bigger term then the Mer (which is a set of hardware related libraries, what is aware construction to support MeeGo as valuable Linux project) and still community+developers+users work with MeeGo and on MeeGo and use the Mer core for this purposes, because Mer allow to use better developed low level and hardware using libraries and concentrate on higher layers - what of course could start at last 3 or 4 new discussions in which I am not going to take part, as they ought to be moved to MeeGo and Mer article talk pages, and discussed with MeeGo and Mer developers rather. You are the only persons I know who are confused about this. Anyway trying to solve this mess and trying find acceptable consensus I have added "fork" to avoid claimed by you confusions. Jolla directly refers to MeeGo and MeeGo system and MeeGo ecosystem, and in frames of this admits it uses the Mer core as one of technical details. Role of this is explained in article, you can improve it more if you want. So importance or Mer core has been respected, and intention of Jolla to be a part of MeeGo ecosystem, not a part of non-existing Mer ecosystem, has to be respected also. Using Mer without MeeGo, so above MeeGo, would confuse most of common users what would be unreliable. Ocexyz (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you ignore the issue of the overloaded meaning of the name Meego which creates unnecessary confusion and ambiguity when used in the summary without explanation or consider that non important, I have nothing more to add. We'll have to disagree on that, since I consider it important. I'm against confusing usage of the name Meego in the summary. -- Bahaltener (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mer as a Fork of Meego

Hi,

It seems that Ocexyz agreeed that Mer is a fork of Meego. If so I would be very happy with that, but I am not sure if it is clear what a "fork" really is.

From the Wiki page:

In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent   
development on  it, creating a distinct piece of software. The term often implies not merely a development branch, but a split in the developer  
community, a form of schism.[1]

(...)

Forks often restart version numbering from 0.1 or 1.0 even if the original software was at version 3.0, 4.0, or 5.0. An exception is when the 
forked software is designed to be a drop-in replacement of the original project, e.g. MariaDB for MySQL[10] or LibreOffice for OpenOffice.org.

Fork (software development)

The software stack of the Meego-Project does not get any more updates, besides bug-fixes. The development was stopped with Meego 1.2, and the started work on Meego 1.3 was not finished. Source: meego.com. Because of that Mer was forked to secure the future development. However, because Meego's development was stopped, there is no split of the developer community. The main part of Meego - the Meego API is consisting of Qt/Qt mobile and OpenGL ES - is still used by Mer, so developers don't have to change a lot. The only changes are due to newer versions of the libraries, eg. Qt. 5.0 instead of the 4.7 versions of Meego 1.2 or Qt mobile 1.2 instead of 1.0. Beause the API is simpler then I thought, I could also agree to a sentence like "based on the Meego API"

So my current proposal for a compromise would be:

Jolla Oy[1] (internationally Jolla Ltd., commonly called Jolla Mobile in many sources) is 
an independent Finland-based company to design, develop and sell smartphones using a mobile Linux operating system.
The core systems is provided by the Mer software stack. Mer was forked from MeeGo after one of Meego's founders Nokia 
decided only to use Windows for future smartphones. Consequently the other founder, Intel, abandoned Meego(*), too. Intel later
decided to continue the work of a mobile Linux OS together with Samsung and called their new project Tizen. However, 
together with the name change, there are also deep, technical changes. The most important one is probably the fact that 
Tizen does not support the full Meego API any longer, which consists of Qt, Qt mobile and OpenGL ES.  Contrary to that, Mer is 
still based on the Meego API. The only differences are updated versions of the involved libraries, e.g. Mer utilizes Qt 5.0 instead 
of Qt 4.7, which was used in the last version of Meego, Meego 1.2. Jolla intends to announce it's first smartphone product during 2012.

Sources: (*)http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110901PD217.html

It got longer than I thought, but to explain the everything, I decided to include Tizen. Is it acceptable, or do we have to switch to the referee system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Almöhi (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't stated anything about Mer is a fork of Meego, but only that Mer is the core distribution, and that Jolla OS is MeeGo fork with use of the Mer core. Please do me the big favour and let me speak for myself, you are not authorised to speak in my name. I want to be precise in my own way.

Seems you still don't get enough that opensource by nature of opensource is something what everyone can take and develop any time any moment in any way. You ought to discuss MeeGo at MeeGo article, and Mer wih Mer article. It is completely irrelevant if it is developed or frozen or whatever else - still as an open source and as the standard the MeeGo Linux is accessible for anybody interested in, and this is completely unrelated and independent from Jolla work, and not mentioned to have any influence so far. Just another story, not Jolla's.

You mix (what is falsification, accidental or not - I don't consider this) situations from 2011 with article from 2012 referring to 2012 situation, which are poorly related one to another. You say above "...founder, Intel, abandoned Meego(*),..." while in the (*) source it is stated directly "...In response, Intel said it does not comment on industry speculation or rumor. The company did say it remains committed to MeeGo and will continue to work with the community to develop and help meet the needs of customers and end users with open source. ..." - this is in the source linked by you, and this means that Intel does not care of "speculation or rumor" and means undoubtedly Intel "remains committed to MeeGo and will continue to work with the community to develop and help meet the needs of customers and end users with open source" - what in general mean that proposed by you text is so to say gently "not true, and quite against facts confirmed by the linked source". Whatever, you can take and discuss this at MeeGo article, as this is not related to the subject of Jolla article. MeeGo status does not have influence on fact that Jolla's OS and works are based on MeeGo in various aspects and in various meanings in the same time, and this is confirmed by sources.

The Tizen is not any part of Jolla work, and it is mentioned in the article only after source where it is stated that Jolla is open for collaboration. What is Tizen is a subject of Tizen article, but not Jolla article as here is irrelevant and not taking anything to the article. There are wiki links to [MeeGo] and [Tizen] where this parts ought to be described if you want them to describe there. What you would like to include is unrelated to Jolla I am affraid. I appreciate your contributions and assume they are in good faith. Ocexyz (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think that in the intro, we should only mention MeeGo (like the secondary sources do) and not include this technical talk about Mer, Tizen, Qt, OpenGL... I'm hoping we would go through the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard process since this Mer vs. MeeGo discussion has been going on for two weeks already and has flooded this talk page without apparent progress. Additionally, I'm hoping it would result in a better concensus than a 2-2 vote, and in a clear approval of all the central Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --TuukkaH (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia has to be precise, there is no room for simplicity. You get only confused because the solution looks soooo easy and tempting, but it would not be correct. As I said before Meego is not developed on since last year, besides bug fixes, just check meego.com. Why would you want to use it as the main point? Only, because it "looks easier" ? With all due respect, if somebody comes to wikipedia he/she wants to get informed and not be treated like a 3 year old. It is in the nature of complicated things that they cannot be explained easily, and the whole history of meego, dead of meego, tizen, mer is rather complicated.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What Wikipedia "has to be" is stated in the policies, and I don't see a policy of "no room for simplicity". In any case, we have to summarise (the reliable sources) and in the intro even more so. This is an article about a company, not about a scientific topic. --TuukkaH (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedia entries ...

are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries.[3] Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic 
information about words, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands

Source: Encyclopedia

The factual information is that Jolla is running on Mer and Meego is not developed since last year. If you do not want to have such a level of detail in the introduction then I propose to stick only with "based on a FOSS Linux system for mobile devices". The details than in the software section. Would that be acceptable for you?--Dark Almöhi (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

MeeGo is superior then Mer - Mer is the core while MeeGo is Linux, and sources says that Jolla OS it based on MeeGo. Also Jolla itself declares so, even when use Mer core. So first reason is meritocratic, second is confirmation of facts in reliable and many sources. And making things more complicated then this is necessary and then they are does not create anything good IMHO. And is confusing. Seems you would be more satisfied with omitting MeeGo name and in consequence MeeGo ecosystem, but that would be against facts, rules, implications, and common sense IMHO. That would also put a technical detail above general idea of the project, what would be falsifying of facts. That would be not informative and quite strange, at last for me. Ocexyz (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you are out of touch with facts. Meego can't be comparable to any active project, since Meego is a closed project. The one that is open is Mer, and not Meego. Don't increase confusion by using the wrong name in the article. -- Bahaltener (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@Ocexyz: Simple question to you: Which version of Meego are they based on? Meego 1.0, 1.1, 1.2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Almöhi (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be precise and correct. Clarity is important, and confusing and ambiguous summaries degrade the educational value of the article. Replacing Mer for Meego is a double problem, not it is only misleading in obscuring the factual information (that direct derivation is coming from Mer project, and not from Meego project), it's also misleading in letting one assume that Jolla is based on the frozen ("dead") project. Marketing reasons of "everybody loves Meego name" are completely irrelevant here, it's encyclopedia and not a tech review article of some weakly informed journalist. -- Bahaltener (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN reminder

I'm here to remind users Ocexyz (talk · contribs), Bahaltener (talk · contribs) and Dark Almöhi (talk · contribs) that their participation is needed at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, where uninvolved editors are waiting their chance to help with this dispute. Please, file your opening statements! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sure, don't worry. We are discussing already since several weeks, so a few days or more don't matter now. I just started a last compromise effort ( see above), and will give it 1-2 additional days. There is hope until the end. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolution of the Mer vs Meego dispute

The Mer vs Meego dispute was finally resolved - thanks to all who participated in the discussion to build consensus! The dispute resolution discussion can be seen archived here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 43#Talk:Jolla.

In summary: "The proposal to create a spinout article with focus on technology topic was endorsed by 3 of 4 disputants, with the remaining one being inactive since 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC), which is 4 days earlier the closure); thus the case is considered resolved in absentia."

Details of the article division from the solution:

1. an article about the company with no mention of Mer (operating system) in the lede
2. an article about the platform Jolla Mobile develops, with discussion of Mer (operating system) relationship

I've proceeded to implement this solution:

1. the Jolla article doesn't mention Mer in the leading paragraph anymore but links to the new article...
2. ... Jolla OS that has discussion of the Mer relationship and other more technical matters

Hope everyone finds this acceptable and we can continue with regular content improvements! --TuukkaH (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mobile World Congress 2013

Thursday, 28 February 2013, at Mobile World Congress 2013 (MWC) in Barcelona, Jolla's CEO Marc Dillon had a discussion panel together with Mozilla's Chair Mitchell Baker (Firefox OS) and Canonical's founder Mark Shuttleworth (Ubuntu Phone OS), see video of the keynote [1]. I think this is a good primary independent source that could add up notability to the article's subject. Toffanin (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx, indeed it is primary, however some may not agree with "independent" as Marck Dillon, the CEO, is obviously more then hardly related to Jolla ;). Anyway I have found not easy to get any info from this so far. I'll try harder ;). What facts, but encyclopaedic only, from there should be mentioned? In points with a time stamp of video please? Ocexyz (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why so much Sailfish stuff here?

This is an article about a company. There is a separate Sailfish OS article. Why is so much Sailfish stuff here then? Makes no sense to me. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right, but besides Sailfish, there is nothing else known about the company. Hence some contributors are writing about it. That will be obsolete from the moment that there will be products available.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

More or less this way. It allows to gather all information in one place. It will be edited with new products like Jolla smartphone. Also to avoid edit wars like with Lumialover not so long time ago. Ocexyz (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Please can someone advise on how to pronounce 'Jolla'? 92.63.143.57 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Jolla is Finnish word, not English, hence pronounce it with "Y" like in name "Yollanda" or in "yellow", but not like "jolly roger". Ocexyz (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but some Jolla people also once stated, that you could pronounce it like in "jeans", too, when talking English ... I dont like that idea myself, but in short you can say: Do it as you want. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I have never hear even native English speaker pronouncing it this way. A kind of blind path when one want make things so easy that they become a kind of deviation, IMHO. Ocexyz (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Bridge program

In the article "Nokia's Bridge program was established to select, support and establish new start-up companies led by former Nokia employees to help them earn a living and try to mitigate some of the bad PR Nokia was suffering."

What is the relevance? As far as I'm aware Jolla has received nothing at all from nokia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.75.65 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Jolla has been established with the current shape with help of this program. Founders has obtained an amount of money (can't remember now, however it was told: either 25k EUR or 50k EUR) for each one of ExNokia employee (not only Jolla team, but all fired) from the Bridge program and has used this money to develop business with existing that time Jolla entity as such - hence this is extremely relevant for the project, hence mentioned. This program was established for Nokia to avoid accusations and damages from fired employees - exNokians were benefits, including those who are Jolla team. The aim of bridge program was to help them to create a work for them. It is difficult to predict, but perhaps without this money they would not have possibility to gather themselves together, start, collect resources, design Sailfish OS & SDK and survive at the market the incubation period of Jolla. Entirely different thing is that in fact Jolla has not been gifted with anything from Nokia: there were some rumours about some patents for eg. SwipeUI, but they were clearly demented by Jussi Hurmolla, when he was CEO yet - Jolla has not been given anything, however relations are good what can be important eventually in future. Don't mix those 2 entirely different things. Both true as outlined above. Ocexyz (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about severance pay in which case these severance packages are pretty much standard practice in Finland. If the company actually received any money from Nokia I'd like to see the source for this and then it might be relevant to the article. Other wise it should definitely be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.75.65 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jolla company hasn't received any money from Nokia as I know. Nokia exworkers, Jolla founders in this number, has received money in Bridge program and Jolla founders instead buying ice creams used received money as resources for building Jolla and products, each one of them has made own contribution from money received from Nokia with the bridge program, but not Nokia contributed to Jolla. The biggest source of money for start-up is relevant, at last founders says so, see sources mentioned. Without money from Bridge program and using them for developing Jolla they, Jolla founders, would not have a chance to gather together to develop Jolla and products, to fund-rise next money and get where they are now. Those are historical facts. Also the fact is Jolla is in good relations with Nokia, as Jolla say. Ocexyz (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Bridge program" is in other words just spinn for standard severance pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.75.65 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No. What it is has been explained above. What you think about it without any sources is just only your POV, which is only up to you, you have right to your own POV. If you have any sources saying "The "Bridge program" is just spinn for standard severance pay." then you can prove it, but still it does not change anything in its relevance for Jolla creation. You are wasting our time only IMHO. Look for sources when you are in doubts, give your contribution, not only POV. Ocexyz (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article is growing too long and unstructured and it is hard to find information. Stuff should boldly to be moved to Jolla (mobile phone) and Sailfish OS articles. --Zache (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Further development and improvements

What is source for this chapter? ([http://www.gsmarena.com/jolla_jolla-5457.php# this?) And is there any proof that the information is correct? --Zache (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Someone shold add IPA phonetics to the line on how to pronounce 'Jolla'. -Mardus (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Founders

Would love to get a second oppinion on the founders. There seems to be no official source, but searching lists the following candidates:

• Marc Dillon
• Antti Saarnio
• Sami Pienimäki
• Stefano Mosconi (CTO)
• Jussi Hurmola (former CEO, Sailfish dev)

Any further additions? --MyRobotron (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi :) there are sources, including official ones. There were 4 founders only. Either Sami Pienimäki or Jussi Hurmola was not among formal founders. Your precision and involvement has impressed me. Ocexyz (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jolla. 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/20140408130917/http://www.mobilemonday.net/05/2013/momo-helsinki-may-20th-featuring-jolla-love-day.html to http://www.mobilemonday.net/05/2013/momo-helsinki-may-20th-featuring-jolla-love-day.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006103540/https://sailfishos.org/wiki/Porting/Harmattan to https://sailfishos.org/wiki/Porting/Harmattan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315002624/https://sailfishos.org/wiki/Main_Page to https://sailfishos.org/wiki/Main_Page

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) 15:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jolla. 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/20120718074014/http://www.ytj.fi/english/yritystiedot.aspx?yavain=2319714&kielikoodi=3&tarkiste=09432FE8912F6D266B1530B16BEE9BD166AE2AD2&path=1704%3B1736%3B2052 to http://www.ytj.fi/english/yritystiedot.aspx?yavain=2319714&kielikoodi=3&tarkiste=09432FE8912F6D266B1530B16BEE9BD166AE2AD2&path=1704;1736;2052
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209172544/http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Many+former+Nokia+employees+start+businesses+of+their+own/1329104331230 to http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Many+former+Nokia+employees+start+businesses+of+their+own/1329104331230

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) 14:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)