Talk:Parallel Virtual Machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Conflicting information[edit]

Both Parallel Virtual Machine and Message Passing Interface have conflicting information, and blatant POV.

From Parallel Virtual Machine as of February 6, 2007:

PVM enables users to exploit their existing computer hardware to solve much larger problems at minimal additional cost. Hundreds of sites around the world are using PVM to solve important scientific, industrial, and medical problems in addition to PVM's use as an educational tool to teach parallel programming. With tens of thousands of users, PVM has become the de facto standard for distributed computing world-wide.

From Message Passing Interface as of February 6, 2007:

MPI is a de facto standard for communication among the processes modeling a parallel program on a distributed memory system. Often these programs are mapped to clusters, actual distributed memory supercomputers, and to other environments. However, the principal MPI-1 model has no shared memory concept, and MPI-2 has only a limited distributed shared memory concept used in one portion of that set of extensions.

Since both PVM and MPI are used for distributed parallel applications, more or less for the same purpose, but they are incompatible with each other, it is strange that both are de facto standard.

--Juliano (T) 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim that PVM is a de facto standard was removed by an anonymous editor on 29 November 2007. No reason appears to have been given. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A good reason may be that it is not true that it is the standard. And the article does have a sales-like tone anyway. History2007 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)