Talk:Junos OS

Sales pitch?

Most of this page reads like a sales pitch, impartial? I think not (Especially the last paragraph at the bottom of the page) 202.218.14.65 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)rj

I concur with the previous comment, this is blatant advertising and I'd very much like this page to be purely factual about what JUNOS is and does and references to Cisco, hardware et all and Corporate logos removed. I am trying to update this page and the owner seems to think its OK to continue with this format. The material posted is copyright of Juniper Networks and does not have express mission to be used in this way on this site. I would encourage the "owners" of this page to cease and desist from using this. This does not show Junos or Juniper in the light under which the company operates. I'd be happy to provide further input and apologies if I'm not using the correct etiquette on this site. (talk) Hubbardmeister (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Added "advert"

The comparisons that show how JunOS is "superior to IOS" are not encyclopedic. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tinucherian keeps removing the "advert" tag without actually improving the article. I'll try to contact him. - Gckrol (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown also thought the article didn't read enough like an advertisement to warrant the tag. I've tried to clean up the article in an effort to be constructive but I'm afraid I had to remove a lot of irrelevant information and sales pitches. I hope that's ok. - Gerard Krol (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. The old stuff is still in the history if someone wants to work it back in, preferably in a more neutral way. I just hesitate to tag for 'ad' if the majority of the article isn't so bad. Others may have a completely different opinion, and that is ok, too. Good job on editing. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks fine, All i thought was advt tag for the whole of the article was unfair. Thanks for the cleanup -- Tinu Cherian - 05:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Version numbers

Should we list the latest "stable" release or just the latest release on the infobox? Stable is debatable, and the latest release is 11.2. I'm going to just bump it to the latest 11.1 for now (R4.4). -- Mark Kamichoff (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's Junos not JunOS [2016: It's not that either, any longer]

Moot

 – The name changed again, to Junos OS.

Actually it's represented as Junos or JUNOS on most official documentation. The trademark states that no size is inflicted on the mark: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77819310&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

JunOS should not be used for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.224.36 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The long name of it is Junos Network Operating System, and the present short name is Junos OS. It is definitely not JunOS, nor JUNOS. Older marketing materials sometimes capitalized it, but that's a SONY matter (see MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS). While the name of this thing likely originated as a GNU-style recursive acronym, that's academic at this point; it is not presently advanced as an acronym by the company, or treated as one in reliable sources, just a name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Runs on x86

It is probably of interest that Junos runs on x86 (unofficially called Olive) and with the Virtual Route Reflector product almost makes this official --TmuSrnn (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 13:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Junos → Junos OS – It was renamed by the company (back in 2011) [1], and the name seems to be accepted in the public [2], [3], etc. "Junos" is now a general brand name of Juniper Networks, with other products in the lineup, including Junos Fusion [4], etc. So, the present name is a WP:PRECISION failure. PS: While it has a longer name (Junos Network Operating System), it appears to be disused except in some marketing materials, as is the old name Juniper Junos.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC) relisted --SSTflyer 15:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See also the thread #It's Junos not JunOS [2016: It's not that either, any longer], above.

• Support - per nom, well reasoned and supported.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927111144/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/041708-cisco-juniper-operating-systems.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/041708-cisco-juniper-operating-systems.html

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) 17:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)