Talk:IBM Kittyhawk

Computing Low‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Hello, I am the author of the news article wikinews:IBM to construct supercomputer to run entire Internet, after completing the news article I copied it to Wikipedia and wikified it, Kittyhawk as there was no article on this topic. I do not think this causes any issues of copyright infringement. Chessy999 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skynet references[edit]

There does not appear to be a verifiable source for the claim that similarities are being seen between Kittyhawk and Skynet. The claim should not be made unless it can be backed up by verifiable, reliable sources. I'll remove it just now, and if someone can provide a reliable/verifiable source for the claim, it can be added back in. Malbolge (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the blog Blog Chessy999 (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the blog. The only mention of Skynet comes in a comment made by a visitor to the page. If I were to make a comment on that page along the lines of "it's going to go the same way as Shodan from Systemshock" would that comment become encyclopedic? No. The reference to Skynet is a comment made by a random user, and is not encyclopedic. Malbolge (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of comparisons to existing global scale supercomputer prior art including Akamai, MS Azure, Google, Yahoo and Amazon EC2[edit]

This is more a comment on the primary sources, but it's really cute how IBM researchers in their 'paper' make absolutely no reference to organisations which already successfully operate globally distributed supercomputers. --122.106.251.190 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporware[edit]

"a new theoretical"? The industry has a term for this. IBM didn't learn from what it attempted to do with CDC, Cray, DRI, Microsoft, from Osborne and who know what other firms? Build something and let people test it. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]