Talk:Sailfish OS

Wikipedia:Sailfish OS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: People are going to flame it for being too much like Android and WP. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Goddamn it I can't get it right. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Source for package system

Hi, do you have any source/proof that rpm is indeed the package manager on jolla, afaik though meego used rpm meego/harmattan (nokia n9) continued using deb/apt as package manager and jolla seems to be the continuation of meego/harmattan... (I admit it could just be wishful thinking on my part but so far I haven't seen anything pointing one way or the other) --Keeper of the Keys (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Before asking such questions, read the article! It clearly states that Sailfish is built on Mer whose website you can check yourself for the used package format. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it being based on Mer is a proof, as I say above Meego/harmatten coninued to be debian based, the reason I don't know, but jolla is the same group of developers so they can base on Mer/Meego and still be debian based if they like that better. That is why I ask if there is a source from jolla saying what package manager is being used, otherwise no statement can be made on the subject until someone actually uses a device and sees what package maneger is being used. --Keeper of the Keys (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask them yourself on Twitter if obvious proof is not enough for you. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I support KAMiKAZOW, rpm packages are well known fact and proved in sources. Unless dear Keeper of the Keys you will have verifiable sources saying anything else don't waste time of others with unproven speculations or suppositions. But you will not have, as facts are as they are. For me this subject of discussion is no important as a speculation, for me: EOT. Ocexyz (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove or rewrite the "PRISM" section …

… because it is unnecessary and likely biased. FDMS4 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and should stay. I personally like to know on what OS or machine I have a small or big chance of being eavesdropped by what secret service or by whom. Andries (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite the "Android Compatibility" section

.. because it reads like a fanboy collection of wishes rather than a serious, or even a feasible feature. Jolla can claim with enthusiasm in their magazine adverts that all android apps will run, but in Wikipedia things have to be slightly more strict, let alone when some claims are based in a third party virtual machine not supported by Google. Besides, recent changes in Android platform will also make these claims difficult to fulfill, for example Android is also moving to another radically different VM architecture ("ART") that has been just made available on Android 4.4 kitkat, obsoleting dalvik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.4.241 (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

.. Also, even if they include a Dalvik VM, this is the smallest of the problems. They will have to port thousands of libraries (the ever-expanding Android API), that interface native google processes and libraries (for example Skia & SurfaceFlinger). This is a really delicate process, and bigger in size than the whole Jolla OS itself. And is a work that will never end, because Android API is constantly expanded by google in every version.

.. There are a lot of other issues, like code-sharing (that will need to port the Zygote subsystem, or else the memory will be bloated with just an application), privacy (all android applications are sandboxed), etc...

.. So the only feasible way for a system to have "android compatibility" is .. to include the full Android, and just develop a UI-layer. Any other approach is, at the very least, not realistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.4.241 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As Android compatibility is proven fact the section has been rewriten a bit. Indeed there were speculations and unsourced ones - I have removed them. Jolla just did it, and it works as expected, but with Alien Dalvik. So there is additional software for this purpose. So far Android applications can be used on Jolla and there are Android applications in Jolla store even. Eventual problems can appear if software UI would not follow Android standard and only this could be a problem. So far no such case has been noticed. This has created interesting situation where Jolla has better OS and still all preferred apps from previous Android device can be used. Ocexyz (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC) edited Ocexyz (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

.. Maybe it should be added, that Bluetooth is not supported by the "android support", what makes many apps unuseable. 2001:9E8:D711:D00:E80C:448A:C0BC:3E4F (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sailfish is open source model with third party components of other licences which can be ANY source model established by a third party.

There are 2 sources from which implies this is open source model. I quote parts of them below. If there are any sources verifiable which says that below sources are not valid or are overhelming the sources below please link them and disquss here. Otherwise please stop vandalising the Sailfish article with false information that it is closed source model while it is open source with use of other licences components, and those other licences can be as well from free software to closed source, or anything else or beetwen. Vandalising actions and publishing false in article is against Wikipedia policy and fundamental aim, please be informed. And read sources with understanding, please. And EULA is End User License Agreement = it can be about ANY source model, AS SUCH IT DOES NOT INDICATE WHICH ONE, only EULA content says which one, so use of EULA is not any argument this is not open source. Phrase "non free EULA" is dramatic unawareness of what an agreement means. The agreement defines how to obtain a participation or contribution or source code what is open source AND it have to protect intelectual property and other licences of third party components used and included but which are not open source - but it does not change basic open source model. Managing and building order how, through which different projects mentioned explicite in EULA, how to obtain benefits and possibilities of open source - is confirmation of used open source model, but not a confirmation of proprietary model. And such over-interpretation is against EULA and licensing contents, sources with links below. Quoted content clearly says that due to use 3rd party components in the integration version obtained with a product the other licences and 3rd parties rights must be respected what does not cancel open source - don't mistake open source model with protecting 3rd parties rights what is every law order obligation, and Jolla runs internationally so is obligated to do this. I hope this is enough to explain clearly IMHO. Hence I revert false in the article to true open source with components of other licences.

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20150101044101/https://sailfishos.org/about-license.html

<quote too large to sustain fair use removed>

https://jolla.com/sailfish-eula/

<quote too large to sustain fair use removed>

Ocexyz (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ocexyz:I have removed the large quotations above, though I've left the links. The fair use exception to copyright cannot sustain your copying and pasting large portions of text. If you want to use small portions – some _targeted text in quotation marks – to make your point here that would be okay but this was not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Baptx: Sailfish OS does not seem to be FOSS to me. Looking at their EULA (https://jolla.com/sailfish-eula/), it appears to be based on free software but its own proprietary packages (which are what distinguish Sailfish OS from Mer - see https://sailfishos.org/wiki/Architecture) are not free software. The license is very restrictive.

In fact, as you can see from their GitLab (https://git.sailfishos.org/explore/groups?sort=created_asc), the only open source projects are part of Mer itself, which has always been free software.

A good comparison would be claiming that iOS is open source just because the core (XNU) is open source. 79.108.14.82 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, not only that, but it seems like the source model has been deliberately written to mislead. What kind of sentence is "Open source with added closed-source components and extensions of third parties which can be of other licences as well"? If it's open source with proprietary stuff over it, the final result is proprietary. If you take a vegan dish and add cheese, the dish stops being vegan. 79.108.14.82 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but when people have tried to fix it their improvements have been vigorously reverted and no army of elves has showed up on the ridge to defend them. ClareTheSharer (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

So do you reckon we could update this to say it's proprietary software, citing the links I posted earlier? 79.108.14.82 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Only if you can find some reliable sources that say that. I think the sources available indicate that this is an open source project that's closely-held by a commercial interest, like Android. ClareTheSharer (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@79.108.14.82: taking the example of @ClareTheSharer: it would be like saying Android is not open source. I would also prefer Sailfish OS to be 100% open source, like it is already done with Nemo Mobile. But if the Wikipedia page of Sailfish OS says it is proprietary software, then we should say the same on the Wikipedia page of Android. --Baptx (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@79.108.14.82: It would be weird to say Android is open source but Sailfish OS is proprietary since the goal of Sailfish OS is to provide a more open and privacy-friendly operating system. It is similar to Maemo / MeeGo used on Nokia N900 and Nokia N9, the operating system is open source but there are some proprietary components from Nokia. --Baptx (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Maadajävri lake name

The lake name should not be changed, because it's an actual name.

Although most Finnish lakes end with -järvi, then Maadajävri is the lake's name in Skolt Sami language; the lake is near Inari, Finland. The Finnish-language name of the lake is Tyvijärvi, but it's got a namesake near Pori. -Mardus (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of it?

Could someone explain why this operating system exists and what its benefits are? The article says it runs "most" Android apps. So is it any different or better than Android from the point of view of the user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawebster (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Pawebster: Hi, yes there are several essential and significant differences that were mentioned in the article and then "removed to clean the content". Anyway in the biggest shortcut, having in mind I can omit/forget most, I would point your attention on following:

• Sailfish is full Linux, so there are things which are in full Linux and lost in Android eg. w/o privileges given by user no app will mount "by itself", what is generalisation but significant as viruses/malware have much more difficulties to infect OS
• By MeeGo legacy, which contains Symbian legacy as MeeGo was to be a replacement for Symbian in Nokia mobiles, Sailfish OS has implemented good practicalities known from Symbian. Another generalisation, but means that Sailfish OS is more familiar and more user-friendly in terms of user comfort and OS behaviour. eg. Symbian always was asking BEFORE ANY external connection via internet or initialised by a software, so even if there were a malware trying to call to highlypaid numbers Symbian were asking user for confirmation or call request were denied (well they learned how to pass through).
• Sailfosh OS has further developed MeeGo code, whole MeeGo code were included and it is about 80% of current Sailfish OS. MeeGo was combined Maemo (Nokia) and Mobilin (Intel). Meamo was polished years by Nokia, Mobilin was polished years by Intel, and after combining them into MeeGo it was polished by both companies (unless Elop has disturbed). And Jolla has started polishing Sailfish which contains MeeGo from about (5?) years, and still continue development and polishing.
• Intel has made low level optimization of performance, hence currently Sailfish is the fastest OS at market, hence can use more effectively even older hardware.
• MER core used in Sailfish established midlleware standard and after MeeGo API standard. That mean that porting to a new HW platform means only finding a Linux kernel that is MER compatible, so anyone on which Sailfish can be settled. Having this hardware specific requirements are complied/fulfiled, cooperation with MER core, middleware is ensured, and as this is standard which is used to compile any Sailfish software that means such software can be used at once, directly - unless a software strictly related upon specific HW would be used eg. when a software try to use HW component like a pressure or radiation reader, but when there is no such thing in a device it will not work. MER allow easier and cheaper software maintenance for more different devices.
• Sailfish was designed and developed BY USERS FOR USERS TO SERVE THEM BETTER it is open source project, but not as a marketing platform for big companies to collect more money from users. This is huge difference. Like Microsoft or Google versus Nokia before it was possessed by Microsoft.
• Sailfish is community driven, it is developed upon the most wanted in users community things, community members requests. So what is developed implies directly from what users need for comfort.
• Operator's and 3rd parties services can be integrated with OS at middle-ware level or UI level, without loosing Sailfish OS capabilities, what can't be done this way in Android. There were graphics explaning this but somebody has removed it from the article, perhaps just to not let people know about this - the more people are unaware the easier it is to play fools of them.
• Sailfish use resources more efficient, hence consumes less CPU and RAM etc. and in consequence use less energy, hence less intensively drains battery, so it can work longer. Display use the most of energy.
• Sailfish follows several standards what makes developers life easier and market wider, so less problems with "incompatibilities between different devices and different mobiles". Can't do it with Android or Windows.
• Sailfish SDK can be launched on windows. Mac or Linux, in general most of PCs. And SDK contains whole Sailfish OS isolated in VM hence SDK allows emolation (but not simulation) of real Sailfish environment so in fact a real device. That mean them much more test can be executed at developer compter without real Sailfish device. Some, including Jolla, say SDK tests/betatests are like using real device, so a real device is not needed to develop software for Sailfish. Can't do it with Android or Windows.
• Sailfish can use software from Android, Sailfish, most of MeeGo, some Tizen, Linux binaries, Linux sources to be compiled. Linux libraries were filled last decades with dozens of tons of software, much more then all Android software.
• Sailfish SDK can be freely modified so can be used to create an environment for groups and teams of programmers and coders. Thus is ready for use for software companies, to be integrated with their infrastructures and data, eg. a specific data or resources can be manages and serve a particular group in specific way via Sailfish SDK rebuilt for this purpose.
• Sailfish use Qt hence porting Symbian software to Sailfish, especially Qt projects is a question of a few hours only. Exactly a few hours, so many soft from Symbian were already ported or is porting to Sailfish.
• MeeGo was designed to be general purpose Linux, what is terrifying for competitors like Microsoft as it is easier, faster, cheaper and don't allow to collect money as Windows or Android allows.
• Sailfosh OS is not a marketing platform, is linux os for user. Jolla respects users privacy hence by default no telemetry data or user data are available for 3rd parties unless user actively allow for access. Sailfish OS is NOT spying user. Hence Liquidmorphium Turing Phone has resigned from Android Loolip in favour to Sailfish OS for encrypted secure communications.
• Sailfish is more flexible so any accessories are easier to develop for Sailfish eg. The Other Half which can have own RAM, CPU, software or interfaces etc.etc.
• Sailfish use Wayland by default instead of X
• Community will not let Sailfih OS to die, and it can't be killed like Symbian or MeeGo, so give more perspectives for getting better and better with time and with development
• thanks to its linux nature and MER core it can be launched on any hardware from Rosebery Pi2 to mainframes. And still have the same OS but faster, as it is scalable. The huge progress would happen if the Symbian kernel with its specific advantages would be adopted as Sailfish kernel - it is low probable, nearly zero probability however.
• Sailfish development is under management of meritocracy, hence will not be subject of "political or personal correctness or enforcements" leading to catastrophe, like lobbying between tribes at Nokia - at last I hope so.
• Sailfish OS has preserved so called "old Nokia" legacy considering relations with community. In other OSes user is only unnecessary addition to money that can be collected from a user.
• Sailfish OS based on gestures for operations is much more comfortable, a different and higher class considering comfort.
• Sailfish OS approach is to allow user to use its "endless possibilities" while competitors approach is "to force user to pay more" no meter if it is reasonable.

Those are not all advantages of Sailfih, only those I can write down from memory. If this is was helpful for you I am happy. Sailfish is just more fun and more cool by all means ;) Anyway to understand you need to try, and feel a difference. We all know a sport car is better but only driving it allow to feel a real difference is - you can't try an icecream through the glass window, have to try taste. IMHO. However some hates gesture based OSes and such persons will not be ever satisfied with MeeGo Sailfish. To feel basic differences you can try Jolla Launcher which can be installed and de-installed on Android mobile, and replace Android UI with Sailfish OS UI. However it does not change the OS but allow to try basic differences. Have fun. Ocexyz (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge request - Sailfish Alliance

If you search the web, there is (currently) no such thing like an official Sailfish alliance. The current sources seem to be 404 and AFAIK the term isn't widely used (within the Jolla community). So I would recommend to merge this article with Sailfish OS for example in a partners-section? --MyRobotron (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sailfish Alliance is open collaboration for vendors or producers or companies, not for common members of community. You ought to search mails of presidents of companies, suppliers etc. not a community. Sailfish Alliance is a collaboration of different sides and parties - how do you want to combine such open collaboration of supporters with partners or community? Those are different things. How could you merge parents with children as they support the same system called a family? I think you just have missed that if they could or would want to be partners would not be in alliance. How would you like to "combine as partners" eg ( Cyberport in Hong Kong + Digia + Joiku + Merproject.org + Tencent Holdings ) = ? And what? Call them "partners section"? "partners"? Whose "partners"? "Partners" of what? Any partnership agreement or etc.? Any source supporting this idea? In my opinion that would be falsification against facts. Read with understanding. IMHO this is not any reasonable request as it is against facts. Ocexyz (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not obvious that "Sailfish Alliance" is notable independently of Sailfish OS, so I'd support a merge. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Let see from other perspective: Sailfish Alliance in a part is only about specific hardware components and supplying them - so is about devices, and not any contribution to Sailfish OS as such. It is also about MeeGo Ecosystem. It is about making business around local only services specific for a local operator in specific country. It is just a different being, a different entity, and Sailfish is OS. Following that (false IMHO logic) the alliance of Nokia&Intel ought to be included also as this alliance has worked over MeeGo. Anyway Aliance members are not in any partnership and the Sailfish Aliance is not a part of Sailfish OS. Also there are other companies in Aliance not involved in Sailfish OS at all but interested in Sailfish Aliance for other reasons. Sailfish Aliance member can take the OS or its elements for other purposes then Sailfish and its development. Anyway, if you have sources supporting your point that everything and everyone in Sailfish Alliance is only a part of Sailfish OS and its development then please provide them for evaluation. According to me this is against facts and the Aliance intentions and foundations IMHO. Ocexyz (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That very much sounds like original research. Are you connected with Jolla in some way? ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:D Not at all. This is just info from sources which I used writing the article, so had to read them first. For unknown reasons many of those sources were removed as "improvement". Anyway this is just a question of simple research in Google. Among them were interview (techcrunch and plenty others) and tweets with Jolla founders, mangers, employees who were explaining what, why, when, who, what for etc.etc.. So in a way this is info from inside, indeed. And I have written down only some parts from memory, also things not encyclopaedic hence not included in the article. I have no hidden relationship with Jolla. Ocexyz (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The Sailfish Alliance is a competitor to the Open Handset Alliance (see here). This has notability in the news media in and of itself. -- Callinus (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion and obvious enthusiasm in the subject article, but it's still not clear that Open Handset Alliance would ever arise in the news media independently of a discussion of Jolla's business and Sailfish OS. As a consequence it does not appear to be independently notable hence the suggestion to merge it into this article or into the Jolla article. Do you have evidence that the subject is sufficiently independently notable to justify its own article? ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Allowing for WP:SILENCE,  Done Klbrain (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge request - Jolla Launcher

There is IMHO just a small relevance to the Jolla launcher (only Angry Birds was official launcher, no community nor maintenance anymore, ...). So I suggest to merge it to the SFOS article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyRobotron (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion however Jolla Launcher is the proper article link and it is good for the discussion to show correct one instead non-existing one, so everybody can see not a dead end only. Jolla Launcher is the separate piece of software. It is existing and sourced fact. It is not a part of Sailfish OS, but Android software for Android OS. Android software is not an Sailfish OS, indeed, and it is quite good to understand what proposal is about and does proposal make sense. Maintenance is upon requests and needs for a particular device, your searching is is not enough intensive. The community is the MeeGo Sailfish community so quit a lot I think. Merging Jolla Launcher, the Android software, into Linux MeeGo Sailfish OS would make chaos and have not reasons. There were wikilink here in See also section for it but has disappeared, which shows it is related. It should appear there again. Ocexyz (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Further aspects

There might be some more aspects for the article

• EULA and legal
• Features and antifeatures
• classification towards other mobile OSses and mobile Linuxes
• ...

Would love to get some feedback or assistance :-) --MyRobotron (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't get what do you mean? And what support do you need? What are "Features and antifeatures"? EULA was linked as a source. I assume your contributions are in good faith, even when I disagree, but really don't get this idea. Ocexyz (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Avrora vs Aurora OS

This article uses the name Avrora OS. This is most likely mistranslated. In Russian "Avrora" is actually how "Aurora" is spelled when using latin script. Most English language stories covering this topic report the name as "Aurora". Slacka123 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing

I've removed a large amount of crufty material from this article. Almost all of it was unreferenced. The bulk of it was a giant version history table. This information is better off hosted at the projects website itself. Other information removed was un-encyclopedic and promotional. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

History

The feature list contains the following item: "Strong multitasking (one of the most important advantage of the OS and declared to be the best one on the market)"

I take two issues with that sentence:

1. Strong multitasking is not a known term. What does it mean for multitasking to be strong?

2. The "declared to be the best one on the market" reads like an advetisement. Declared by whom? In any case that seems subjective and not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.177.122 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)