Talk:MOSIX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The OpenMOSIX and it's creator were never a part of the MOSIX project, and so there is no good reason to include it in the page. Also, OpenMOSIX has it's own wikipedia value, and a link to it was places at the link page, right after the link to the official MOSIX homepage, and there is no use nor need to repeat it here (not to mention the project was officially terminated). I would appreciate if the OpenMOSIX section will not be added to this article with no reason.

Alex, Member of the MOSIX lab

Don't you think there might be a conflict of interest, seeing as how you are personally involved in the MOSIX project? Please discuss the change and get a consensus among others who are not involved in the project before removing the information again. What you're doing is considered vandalism and a point-of-view edit. -- Schapel 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It is true that I'm involved in the MOSIX project. Before I say anything else - would you care to clarify your affiliation/relation to the OpenMOSIX? I'll start by stating that MOSIX is a registered trademark of Amnon Barak and Amnon Shiloh (as stated in the official webpage), and the entire article (except the OpenMOSIX section) was written by the MOSIX group. Furthermore, the OpenMOSIX section should not be in the middle of the article, anyway.
I will not re-edit the article for now, but I expect a reply within a reasonable time-frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My only affiliation with openMosix is that I discovered it while researching clustering software. I decided not to use it, but went with Rocks Cluster Distribution instead. After seeing how hard it was to find mention of openMosix, I decided to mention it in this article. On further investigation, it appears that members of the MOSIX project repeatedly try to remove information on openMosix from this article. Thanks a lot for making my research harder to do. Please leave the information about openMosix in so others who would like to find the software can find it. This article is for people who want to learn about options for clustering software, not for the sole benefit of the MOSIX team. Thanks. -- Schapel 14:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
First, Since OpenMOSIX has it's own article, and a simple search for "mosix" reveals the openMOSIX article as well. I would like to refer you to the wikipedia guidelines stating clearly enough that there is no reason to include sections deviating to such extent from the original topic (despite the similar name). Do you think it is proper if a MOSIX section was added to the openMOSIX article, or in fact any article discussing virtualization? I did add the OpenMOSIX at the links section as an attempt of compromise, and still insist that the openMOSIX section has no place here.
Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say an open source fork of the project is quite relevant. If you want to go ahead and add a section on MOSIX to the openMosix article, go ahead. I'm sure you could make a significant and helpful contribution to that article with an appropriately written section. An entire section on MOSIX or openMosix in an article on virtualization might be appropriate, as long as those projects are not given undue weight. Feel free to contribute whatever you wish to Wikipedia, as long as you think it serves the purpose. Additionally, if you get a consensus that an openMosix section has no place here, feel free to remove it. If a member of the MOSIX team removes it, it looks suspiciously like you're trying to suppress information about your competitors and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Schapel 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted a reply at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#MOSIX_article. |dorftrottel |humor me 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So there you have it folks, "openMosix warrants a brief mention at MOSIX". Let me take this opportunity to clear up the misconception that "The MOSIX article has been constantly modified by a single user to include a reference to another project". It has been modified by at least two different users (originally modified by Guaka) and the reference has been constantly deleted by members of the MOSIX team, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy regarding conflicts of interest. -- Schapel (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No reason to get excited. Yet. We will just wait and see where it goes from here. |dorftrottel |talk 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The MOSIX team has repeatedly misrepresented the truth, for example, claiming that the statement that openMosix is a fork of MOSIX is "just cheap gossip". I just want to clear up the further misrepresentation before it gets too out of hand. It is not correct that "a single user" (clearly referring to me) added content about openMosix to the article. All I did was undo the repeated deletion of openMosix content by MOSIX team members. In other words, I'm not the disruptive editor, as the MOSIX team is trying to make it look like. I just wanted to clear that up before their claims get more outrageous, if they ever do. -- Schapel (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Order of events is reversed[edit]

The article claims that "After MOSIX became proprietary software in late 2001, Moshe Bar forked the last free version and started the openMosix project on February 10, 2002"

The fact is that at the time of fork, MOSIX was still open source software under the GPL license. It was only after, and as a result, of that fork that the MOSIX team decided to close the MOSIX sources.

Hence the correct text should therefore read:

In late 2001, Moshe Bar forked the last free-source version of MOSIX and started the openMosix project on Feb 10, 2002. The MOSIX team responded by closing subsequent versions of the MOSIX source-code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.157.70 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)