Talk:OpenNebula

Point of view
This article as presently written sounds rather like marketing speak, which leaves a funny taste. Credit to the writers who properly noted their affiliation (below). Looks like the sort of persuasive material one might put on a company website, though less suitable as a Wikipedia article.

As best I can tell, OpenNebula is one instance of a class of software. The article is written as though everything about OpenNebula is unique. (Which is plainly not true.) Looking more for a compare and contrast exercise.

Came here as was reading generally to update about container and cloud frameworks suitable to deploy in-house. A few years back, worked on projects (delivered to customers) that added VM-backup to vCloud and OpenStack infrastructure. Even presented at an OpenStack conference. So acquainted with the subject.

Reading the article, my conclusion is OpenNebula is like OpenStack (as cloud infrastructure software), but maybe different ... somehow.

Detail common to general cloud-infrastructure software should be largely excised. Lists of customers should be excised (but findable from the linked company website). Compare-and-contrast would be massively useful. pbannister (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

COI
Per the COI guidelines, we're disclosing here that User:Imllorente and User:Bsotomay are affiliated with the OpenNebula project and that we have both edited this article. We believe that an article on OpenNebula merits inclusion in Wikipedia as it is an active open source project with a large community of users (it's hard to back this statement up with hard data, but you could take a look at our mailing list archive as an indicator of the project's volume of activity). We have also tried to make the article conform to NPOV by keeping it facts-only and avoiding the more promotional language we use on our website, but we welcome feedback on how to make the article adhere to Wikipedia guidelines.

Bsotomay (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good start, but there was still some dated and promotional language. Also way too much reliance on acronyms and terms probably not known to most readers. W Nowicki (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Book reference
Consider adding a further readings section containing the newly published book about OpenNebula: 79.33.200.90 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)