Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:Cloud computing. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 446:
::::Could you give me something more substantial than agriculture analogies and motivational speeches about evolving assumptions and leaps and whether or not "it's the right thing to do?" Networks are not made of cloth and I do not grow corn in my computer. Keep your paradigms in your pants and just explain how it is all hooked up--I'm way more confused by jargon than a highly-complex but straightforward technical explanation. --[[Special:Contributions/72.39.35.178|72.39.35.178]] ([[User talk:72.39.35.178|talk]]) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've revised the page's history and it started off saying it was just another "form" of grid or distributed computing; far more accurate in my opinion than the current version (despite it's many deficiencies). In my opinion, the term "Cloud Computing" is just another fine example of marketing and buzzword spinning than of anything tangible or specific. It's vague and it means many different things to many different people; all the hallmarks of good marketing. I think wikipedia is being used as an effective "marketing" tool for tech companies to peddle their vaporware terminology... along the lines that if Wikipedia says XYZ then there must be something to it. At the very least, this page should be flagged - it does not represent a true and factual account of anything and I question it's neutrality. [[User:CarlosLozanoDiez|CarlosLozanoDiez]] ([[User talk:CarlosLozanoDiez|talk]]) 17:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The article's history is irrelevant - I invested a significant amount of time and energy into rewriting it from scratch as the previous version did not reflect reality. Cloud computing is not a marketing buzzword and most of the leading vendors (notably, including [[Microsoft]], traditionally a staunch opponent) have changed direction to focus on it. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Introduction paragraph ==
Line 459:
[[User:Dhoomady|Dhoomady]] ([[User talk:Dhoomady|talk]]) 07:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the length issue has been addressed, so I removed the tag. <
: Thanks. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Google Chrome ==
Can this article please be more neutral? Google is not the center of the universe. Citing Chrome, for example, was a bit too much for me. More traditional browsers, such as IE and FF deserve the merit much more than that piece of failure called Chrome. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.16.37.118|24.16.37.118]] ([[User talk:24.16.37.118|talk]]) 08:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I'm on OS X so I don't use Chrome (yet), but we need more from our browsers in terms of performance, scalability and security (I've lost count of the number of times I've lost a bunch of tabs to Firefox crashing and I haven't had a Windows box to use IE on since... what... 2005). IE8 might be a contendor, and possibly FF3, but the point was that cloud computing demands a new breed of browser. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Easy to understand Cloud Computing ==
Line 500:
--[[User:Ramu50|Ramu50]] ([[User talk:Ramu50|talk]]) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:I'm more confused now. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Add a "Criticism of cloud computing" section? ==
Line 534:
--[[User:Ramu50|Ramu50]] ([[User talk:Ramu50|talk]]) 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Breaking news: threatened vendors critical of next generation tech. Film at 11. A criticism section is a slippery slope so valid, specific weaknesses have been rolled into the 'key characteristics' section (one man's weakness is another man's feature). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
--
Line 557:
: This has a strong focus on offline issues and makes various assertions that I don't think are valid, like that internet computers are ''IDIOTIC'' because Internet is unreliable - maybe in the US it is but at least here in France it's rock solid and on mobile devices where most of the action is these days it's virtually bulletproof (eg android, iphone). You also assert that keeping your mail on your computer makes it ''IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO GET HACKED'', which is simply delusional.
: I agree that the article needs to be balanced, but I have resisted ''Pro'' and ''Con'' sections because they create a free for all and are often incomprehensible (one person's con, like most of the things you cite above, is another's pro). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Cloud-based version of wikipedia ==
Line 565:
I think UML can utilize RPC to achieve that and in some virtualization. Theoretically it is very possible to achieve it, you just need to manage the protocol traffic engineering very well or else leakage would cause havoc that might lead to Data Duplication, faults...etc. --[[User:Ramu50|Ramu50]] ([[User talk:Ramu50|talk]]) 22:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Sounds something like Freenet. Interesting idea. Not relevant here. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Private and Public ==
Line 577:
Private Cloud storage is typically a loosely coupled architecture, where the nodes don’t need to talk to each other to facilitate writing in parallel to a single file spread across multiple nodes. Instead meta-data operations are centralized enabling the data nodes to focus on delivering data to applications or users. Examples include ParaScale, Hadoop and mogilefs. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mwmaxey|Mwmaxey]] ([[User talk:Mwmaxey|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mwmaxey|contribs]]) 20:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:'''Note:''' [[User:Mwmaxey]] appears to be Mike Maxey, Parascale's Director of Product Management. The [[Parascale]] article has been deleted as G11 (blatant advertising) and user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mwmaxey&diff=246521916&oldid=246010059 warned] about [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:There is ample confusion already (not to mention significant dissent) where the purpose of the article is to give clarity. While it is quite possible that 'private cloud' purveyors like ParaScale will be succeed in co-opting the cloud computing moniker to mean something different, the vast majority of cloud computing discussion is about Internet based solutions; we'll review this when and if that changes. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
I agree; additionally, private/public is quite self-explanatory and there are many other resources/articles to explain what a private network is. There is no need to spoon-feed the readers with this.--deewhite <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.18.230.145|76.18.230.145]] ([[User talk:76.18.230.145|talk]]) 07:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 591:
Any definition that starts with 'means' and goes on as this article begins is a really poor definition. The definition includes the word 'cloud' several times - in itself a poor move - which itself is never further defined. <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.50.46.9|81.50.46.9]] ([[User talk:81.50.46.9|talk]]) 11:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* Thanks for the feedback. Fixed (hopefully). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
＠＠ what do you mean by the word <nowiki>'mean'</nowiki>. Though I think this [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jP6ikYktNSE video] does a quite clearn and structure. Somehow for the past few days, I think cloud computing is just simplifying the structure of database into object-based orientation (I am not talking about ORM or OODBMS) which is a faster way of accessing data. Traditional RDBMS and ORMs seems like it is more suitable for HPC, Supercomputer and other high performance application, thus not suitable for desktop. The object-based I am talking about is the UML model. I think mobile device is doing so well, because the engine that runs the OS is built by a framework, which is drastically different from desktop kernel which is so complex, that is why things like Driver will take so long to write. However, when the engine is built by a framework, everything is so structured by concepts like CRUD, ACID...etc that implanation are offloaded thus you retrieve thing so easily. Model that use it are ActiveX, ADO, OLE, Silverlight, Flash, C#...for more info see the stuff I write before [Template talk:Databases Click Here].
Line 654:
==== Virtualization is usually classified into the following ====
<u>Hardware based</u></br>
* Hardware-assisted (Virtual Machine, codes are complied or interpreted e.g. JVM)
:benefits: Cross-platform
Line 700:
: Wow, you're obviously putting your heart and soul into this... thanks for your efforts and apologies for archiving something that may have still been current. To be honest I'm still a little confused by these diagrams (mostly by the relevance of some of the components) but it's clear that you are viewing the cloud from a different perspective - from 'underneath' perhaps while I am looking at it from a user's point of view. Anyway, interested to see what comes next. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
===Suggestion===
Line 772:
:Looks like I'm not the only one that disagrees. Thanks for not reverting it back yet again. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks [[User:Ronz|Ronz]]. Turns out this was [[User:Ramu50|Ramu50]] again (as a sock), even though Enomaly have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enomaly very] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuven_Cohen long] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Private_Cloud history] of [[WP:SPAM|spamming]] Wikipedia. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Advertising Tone ==
Line 779:
--[[User:Nogburt|Nogburt]] ([[User talk:Nogburt|talk]]) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:Unsurprisingly, I disagree. This 'hype' has been thoroughly validated by changes in focus by virtually all significant vendors (even those like Oracle and Microsoft who have traditionally bashed their cloud based counterparts) and the article is balanced, referring to the pros and cons in the key characteristics section. Wording like 'reliable services delivered through next-generation data centers' sounds positive, but it's accurate... the services are reliable and data-centers [http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/news/article/0,,sid80_gci1324347,00.html next generation]. I'm removing the blanket tag, but encourage you to identify passages that are inappropriately worded, so as we can reference, remove or rewrite them. Thanks. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:Here are some areas:
Line 789:
: Listing companies is useful iff the companies listed are already associated with 'cloud computing'. Google and Salesforce are two obvious examples. Facebook might be another. Listing SAP, Microsoft, etc. regardless of whether they are getting involved now, is more likely 'advertising' for those companies. Granted there are categories which contain this information but listing a few (2-4) of the best examples of cloud computing actors is IMO a good idea.
: The key characteristics section, as I have explained before, was intended to list exactly that... characteristics. One man's pro is another man's con, and many issues (eg security) would appear in both lists anyway.
: Sustainability is a big issue today, and cloud computing, by vastly improving resource utilitisation, is (or at least can be) a sustainable solution. My partner is a sustainability engineer so this is stuff I'm exposed to every day; I assure you that very few computing solutions come close to the benefit that cloud computing is able to offer. Conversely, these installations do centralise consumption of copious quantities of power so there are associated concerns about sourcing cheap power (which essentially translates to dirty coal). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: Sorry about being too brief above. My issue with the quote in the political issues section is simply that the section itself is begins with the full quote as opposed to original prose. I guess you fixed that?
Line 801:
:::The article's already long - turning the lists into prose as you suggest would likely make it less readable. [[Special:Contributions/93.3.248.168|93.3.248.168]] ([[User talk:93.3.248.168|talk]]) 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Definitely several of the lists should stay. But in many other places the lists should either be made into prose or perhaps even broken off into separate articles. Actually that would also be a thing that we could discuss. Is this article too big for just one article? ----[[User:Nogburt|Nogburt]] ([[User talk:Nogburt|talk]]) 16:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::At 34k, not quite yet but it's something we'll likely have to look at before too long. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Cloud image ==
Line 809:
: I replaced the previous image with this one, as I thought it was a bit too technical for the intro section and wasn't even a particularly good diagram to introduce the topic. I'll admit the current image isn't really much more than decorative though. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 19:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
:: This was a placeholder for the replacement that never came, and a bit of a joke in itself. It's already been discussed and removed before, but I'm still not sure of a decent replacement - I tried a few with users hanging off it but none of them looked great. Anyway it's not urgent. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::''Per se'', humour does not make a text, an illustration or any other form of knowledge inapproriate, uneducational, or unencyclopedic; see the [[Name of the Rose]]. The problem with the image then was that it lacked a caption, thus not providing a context and leaving the uninformed reader unenlightened as why it might be humouristic. I've know written such a caption[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=271550348&oldid=271384387], and I'm not certain that it cannot be improved.
:::: No, the problem is that it is so dreadfully amateurish and whimsical that it negatively impacts the article. If we're going to use humour at all, I'd consider waiting for something which doesn't require a multi-line caption in explanation. This should be removed again. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 12:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Line 816:
::::: As there's been no further comment regarding this, I'm removing the image again. Images are not mandatory, and this one is whimsical at best and idiotic at worst. We don't need a placeholder. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Agreed, good call. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
Resolved by creation of [[:File:Cloud computing.svg]] -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Cloud Computing Definition ==
Line 826:
And misuse of parenthesis andq uotation marks still apply. Also, I had corrected irrelevant or wrong links. You should not give links to every word that has an article written. You should only give links when the reader might need to understand some other term in order to understand the article. The links to [[The Cloud]] and [[Everything as a Service]] are ridiculously irrelevant. Stop link spamming!!! --[[User:Emrekenci|Emre Kenci]] ([[User talk:Emrekenci|talk]]) 15:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
:So as I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emrekenci&diff=270020512&oldid=268274944 said before], please identify any relevant policy or guideline regarding our ''"misuse of parenthesis andq uotation marks"'' before reverting again. And while you're there you might want to take a look at [[WP:LINKSPAM]] because it seems you're confused... the [[Everything as a service|as a service]] article was created specifically to support this one and to consolidate the common features of SaaS, PaaS, etc. - thus is is absolutely relevant. [[The Cloud]] explains what the cloud is so it's relevant too. In any case there is no need to come in here and abuse us because you don't like our punctuation style. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
I don't understand how making corrections is abusing. Anyway I suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] in particular the quotations and parentheses part. The way they are used in the current version is simply wrong. I will leave correcting them to you since I feel you have the my-article-no-one-can-edit attitude which is common. have fun cloud boy :) --[[User:Emrekenci|Emre Kenci]] ([[User talk:Emrekenci|talk]]) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
: Right so your condescending "teaching native speakers punctuation" edit above refers to [[WP:MOS#Quotation_marks|this policy]] which specifically allows for both [[scare quotes]] and parentheses. Next time [[RTFM]] before referring to it. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: Punctuation aside, [[The Cloud]] is a dab page and hence not very useful to link to here. To quote [[WP:D]], "With very few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous". [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 11:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC).
Line 836:
::: The usage in the definition are not examples of scare quotes. "Scare quotes indicate to the reader that the word or phrase does not signify its literal or conventional meaning" both cloud and computing words signify their conventional meanings. AND even if it was appropriate to use scare quotes for those words, the parentheses are still wrong. There's nothing about the use of parentheses in [[scare quotes]]. Leave aside being wrong, they add nothing to the understandability of this article and decrease its readibility. The article [[The Cloud]] should be copied to [[Wikitionary]]--[[User:Emrekenci|Emre Kenci]] ([[User talk:Emrekenci|talk]]) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: You're probably right but I tend to stick to WP and commons so I've tagged it accordingly for someone else to take care of. Turns out [[The Cloud]] definition is from this article anyway. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::: I guess we agree on the misuse of scare quotes too. Please do not press on with this, I made quite a research on it and I'm %100 sure that it is wrong to use parentheses and scare quotes together. Scare quotes alone is the appropriate punctuation here. If you revert this edit without any arguments again, I warn you, it will be the third time. No offense. --[[User:Emrekenci|Emre Kenci]] ([[User talk:Emrekenci|talk]]) 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Line 844:
::::::<blockquote>''Double quotes are used for quotations and for the introduction of new terms ("scare quotes")''</blockquote>
::::::<blockquote>Double quotation marks can also be used sparingly for terms used in a semi-technical sense or terms whose validity is questioned (“scare quotes”).</blockquote>
::::::In this case it is both not "my" word and it's not inline, so both are called for. Thanks for playing. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Cloud Storage ==
Line 873:
:: Is there a Rich Internet Applications article this one can point to? No point duplicating stuff. [[User:SteveLoughran|SteveLoughran]] ([[User talk:SteveLoughran|talk]]) 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, and I've recently given it an overhaul. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Security ==
Line 904:
How is Chrome a client? It's just another webbrowser. If Chrome is listen, then why not IE, Firefox and Opera aswell? It seems to me that people are just trying to draw attention towards chrome. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/212.178.206.30|212.178.206.30]] ([[User talk:212.178.206.30|talk]]) 12:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloud_computing/Archive_1#Google_Chrome archives]. Chrome is quite a different beast from the other browsers architecturally, but with FF3 here and IE8 around the corner it's less clear that it's alone. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== The first real cloud ==
Line 920:
Keep Wikipedia clean, but don't leave it empty[[User:Erikw11|Erikw11]] ([[User talk:Erikw11|talk]]) 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
: I'd say that if it's notable enough to hold its own article then it may be worth a mention... otherwise there's plenty of similar projects out there. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: 'The first real cloud' is a bit of a stretch BTW. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Is Cloud Computing is a type of business computing? ==
Line 938:
: If you can find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to back up your hypothesis, then go ahead and cite them. Otherwise, this counts as [[WP:OR|original research]], which is against the rules of WP. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 10:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC).
:: I tend to agree with Letdorf... sounds like OR, or at least something that belongs more in the [[Web 2.0]] article itself. We could however probably afford to talk more about the effects of migrating capex to opex, etc. but I'm not sure that's really what you had in mind. Anyway web 2.0 is more about usages, cloud about resources. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== What's behind "The Cloud"? ==
Line 951:
That meaning of "The Cloud" should be in the article. There's also a lot of other stuff in the interview that should be included in this article. [[User:Tdanecker|Tdanecker]] ([[User talk:Tdanecker|talk]]) 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
: While a good example this is too technical for the audience. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: The example doesn't have to be put 1:1 in the article, but I'm missing the general ideology of the cloud. The article focuses mostly on the "there's a service in the cloud that can be used everywhere" part, and less on the "devices have no local state but only cache things" part. That may be due to the current hype where every service offered in the internet is advertised as "cloud computing". The article should not represent this marketing strategies but the real idea behind the cloud (stateless devices/thin clients and their use of such services). [[User:Tdanecker|Tdanecker]] ([[User talk:Tdanecker|talk]]) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
::: We could certainly talk more about "thin" clients like [[netbook]]s etc... -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Why do they have to keep coming up with buzzwords that ==
Line 963:
:: ''I also hate the word "Cloud Storage"...my request of overhauling the whole article''... hmm that's a bit throwing the baby out with the bathwater don't you think? And based on an opinion piece from a box maker that (unsurprisingly) starts off by equating the cloud to a datacenter and then dives straight into a whole lot of detailed discussion about parallel programming and the like? Interesting, yes, for us programmers, but hardly encylopedic.
Don't stress too much about the "cloud" moniker - it'll fade into the background when everyone's doing it and we'll be back to calling it "computing" again. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
I hope so. This whole article reads like some sort of marketing piece - 'scalability' is all very good, but what does it mean in practice? [[Special:Contributions/86.135.68.65|86.135.68.65]] ([[User talk:86.135.68.65|talk]]) 08:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
:It means you don't have to worry about the details. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Architecture ==
Line 973:
The Architecture section is not very informative, and seems to concentrate on introducing jargon more than on explaining architectural concepts. The reference to "Unix Philosophy" is particularly unhelpful. [[User:Rablewis|Rablewis]] ([[User talk:Rablewis|talk]]) 00:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
: Do you have any better suggestions as to how better to explain the component nature of cloud computing architectures? This was the best (well known) analogy that we could come up with and I personally think it does a good job of illustrating the concept. As unix has cat, grep, sed, awk etc. talking over pipes, cloud computing has storage, compute, queues, databases, etc. talking over http. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Open source is required is a bit strong ==
"Open standards and open source software are also critical to the growth of cloud computing.[13]" is stated in the article at this time. While I do like and uses open source software, and think their are several benefits to that approach. It is by no means a requirement, except in a case where a customers has their own requirement to use open source infrastructure. Also the citation is to a blog where only an opinion that it is required, by no means a strong reference. [[Special:Contributions/209.30.228.224|209.30.228.224]] ([[User talk:209.30.228.224|talk]]) 04:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
:Are you aware of any public cloud infrastructure that does not use open source and/or open standards? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::Many large, retail clouds run on ''proprietary/closed source software'': [http://aws.amazon.com/products/ Amazon's cloud], [http://www.ibm.com/ibm/cloud/ IBM's Blue Cloud] (IBM) and [http://www.microsoft.com/azure/default.mspx Microsoft's Azure] (MSFT) for example all build their clouds with proprietary code; SaaS vendors [http://www.google.com/apps Google Apps] (GOOG) and [http://www.salesforce.com SalesForce.com] (CRM) similarly power their offerings with proprietary software. Even vendors who started with open software frequently, and sadly, do not release their modifications back to the community and thus are effectively using proprietary software. (GPLv3 section 13 specifically addresses the wide spread exploitation of this "server hole" in GPLv2). Given the widespread use of proprietary software, how about changing the wording to say "Open standards and open source software ''have been'' critical to the growth...".
Line 983:
::"Open ''standards''" (HTTP, SSL, TCP/IP), however, remain the backbone of cloud computing, public and private. [[User:Mwarren us|sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ]] ([[User talk:Mwarren us|talk]]) 23:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::It's certainly more reasonable to say that ''all'' cloud computing systems are based on Internet/Open standards but you're right, it's less sure for open source software. Amazon is based on Xen (open source), Blue Cloud [http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=7050 too] (+linux, hadoop, etc.). SalesForce [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/14/salesforce_sun_server_dell/ moved] to Linux and Google's [http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2879 always run on it]. OTOH ''all'' of them have proprietary components and it could be argued that not enough is being done in terms of AGPL etc. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Replace "Internet" with more general word "network" in [[wikt:lede|lede]]? ==
Line 989:
Many vendors provide "private cloud" software and other organizations have developed their own private clouds. These resources meet the definition of cloud computing except that they are not deployed on the Internet, but instead use a private network. The [[wikt:lede|lede]] would be well served by replacing the word "Internet" with the more general word "network". Thoughts? [[User:Mwarren us|sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ]] ([[User talk:Mwarren us|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
: The vast majority of references ''explicitly'' use the term "Internet" and some of them even ''explicitly'' exclude the possibility of internal/private clouds. I for one would '''strongly oppose''' such a change and am pretty sure this has been discussed (and rejected) previously. These things are essentially just virtualisation rebadged as "cloud" and they short-sell cloud computing - indeed many of the key features of cloud computing (perimeter free architecture, worldwide access, no peak load engineering, multi-tenant architecture/economies of scale, etc.) are simply impossible to replicate. That's not to stop someone going and writing about "private cloud" or "internal cloud" in another article of course, but [[Virtual_Private_Cloud|previous attempts]] to do so weren't so successful - it probably doesn't help that virtually everyone pushing this terminology happens to have something to sell and a lot to lose from the success of cloud computing. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: Both linguistically and based on the [[Cloud_computing#Key_characteristics|key characteristics]], "internal clouds" or "private clouds" seem still to be "clouds". Private clouds provide all of the [[Cloud_computing#Key_characteristics|key characteristics]] listed in the article. "[http://www.google.com/search?q=perimeter-free+architecture Perimeter-free architecture]" and "worldwide access" are characteristics not listed in the article; "worldwide access" is a feature of most private clouds (usually achieved using [[VPN]] software) but I'm not familiar with the term "[[Perimeter-free architecture]]". A pointer to the previous discussion of this topic would be appreciated. Thanks! [[User:Mwarren us|sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ]] ([[User talk:Mwarren us|talk]]) 00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,009:
:::<blockquote>That's an oxymoron since cloud computing, by definition, happens outside of the corporate data center, but it's the technology that's important here, not the semantics.</blockquote>
::: Maybe a footnote or small section on the topic representing this minority view would suffice... -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::: The original suggestion was to replace the word "Internet" with "network" in the lede. The other terms (private/internal cloud) seem distracting. An archived disucussion does point out [http://dictionary.zdnet.com/definition/cloud+computing.html ZDNet's succinct and approachable definition] of cloud computing which says in part ``Computing "in the cloud" may refer to a company's own network, but often refers to the Internet...". That seems like a more objective introduction for this article that includes both Internet and private network deployments. While many examples of cloud computing can be found on the Internet, many others are found within private networks.
Line 1,019:
:::::: For all intents and purposes Google corporate is just another Google Enterprise customer - they're remote from the data centers just like everyone else, and may well pay for access just like everyone else too. For now I'd change your statement above as follows: "While ''virtually all'' examples of cloud computing can be found on the Internet, ''some'' others are found within private ''labs''".
:::::: The subject has popped up again a bit with the days-old release of VMware's vCloud... let's give it a bit and see where it goes from here. Oh, and by the way - what did you mean by your latest edits: "''The services are accessible anywhere that the required networking infrastructure.''" -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::::: The special case seems more like the common case. Companies using cloud computing internally include Intel, Pixar, Boeing, Airbus, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Caterpillar, NASA, NOAA, University of California, Oracle, Apple, Nike, Adidas, CERN and [http://www.vmware.com/a/customers/customer/ many more]. Cloud vendors use their own clouds too including Yahoo!, Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, Salesforce, EMC/VMWare and Netsuite. All use large internal clouds that are flexibly applied in a scalable fashion and accessed remotely using standardized protocols on the company's internal network by a variety of groups using web browsers within the company. While their infrastructure is not accessible from the public Internet, the employees still benefit from cloud computing. The lede should include cloud computing regardless of whether its on an internal network or the Internet. Replacing "Internet" in the lede with "network" would capture that. I do think that the "Internet" is the largest and most commonly referenced of all networks.
Line 1,035:
::::::::<blockquote>"The term ‘cloud computing’ encompasses many areas of tech, including software as a service, a software distribution method pioneered by Salesforce.com about a decade ago. It also includes newer avenues such as hardware as a service, a way to order storage and server capacity on demand from Amazon and others. What all these cloud computing services have in common, though, is that '''they’re all delivered over the Internet, on demand, from massive data centers'''."</blockquote>
::::::::Given your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=274878693&oldid=274821232 insistence] despite protests from two editors, consensus from various earlier discussions, lack of consensus here and my suggestion to "see where it goes", now would be a very good time for you to reveal any potential [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. I may have found some reliable sources to justify a mention but don't forget the [[WP:LUC|law of unexpected consequences]]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Definition of Cloud Computing ==
Line 1,042:
: Well, [http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/04/07/15FE-cloud-computing-reality_1.html this article] gives this definition of Cloud Computing: ''Some analysts and vendors define cloud computing narrowly as an updated version of utility computing: basically virtual servers available over the Internet. Others go very broad, arguing anything you consume outside the firewall is "in the cloud," including conventional outsourcing.''. That doesn't really sound like it is including intranet-based distributed computing. Also, the start of the article is trying to explain the ''origins'' of the term "cloud" in this context, so referring to network diagram conventions seems appropriate. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC).
:: Thanks, agreed - the origins of the 'cloud' are both important and relevant. It is also well accepted, except perhaps by purveyors of "I can't believe it's not cloud" systems, that cloud computing is intrinsically linked with 'Internet' - anything else is a poor approximation and today virtually all of the stuff being discussed is [[vaporware]] or confined to labs anyway while Google Apps (as one example of many) has over 10 million active users. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::''Internet based ''''development'''.... ''? This ''description'' does not make much sense, for most people "cloud based" means you can run applications in your browser that actually run on servers on the Internet, and can also save your data there. As such the introduction sentence is really crappy to say the least. It obfuscates what Cloud Computing is really about. [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,050:
:::::The vast majority of topics falling under the 'cloud computing' moniker are developer APIs, components (storage, database, queues, etc.), development platforms (azure, appengine, force.com, etc.), raw compute power (amazon ec2, gogrid, etc.), etc. This is what cloud computing "is really about" - "run[ning] applications in your browser" is called [[Software as a Service]] and is just part of the cloud computing landscape.
:::::Furthermore this is derived from the defintion of "computing" which is "development and use of computer technology". -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::::For the vast majority of people "cloud computing" has just a single meaning, and it has nothing to do with "development", that is just obfuscating the issue for most people. for the vast majority cloud computing means running your applications "on the cloud", and storing your data "in the cloud", or to quote ''"Cloud computing is an idea that what makes up your "personal computer" - your desktop, your apps, and your data, - can live and run on the Internet instead of on your hard drive."''. That is much more direct than all the techno-babble, here, and much more relevant to the normal users. All the obscure technical distractions are just that distractions. Sooner or later the definition of cloud computing has to follow mainstream usage. Just like the [[Application software]] article, there wont be any talk about its development, API's or Libraries, but what a software application '''does''', with "Cloud computing" it will be the same, people are not concerned how applications for cloud are developed, but what "Cloud computing" means for them, and what the immediate consequences are of its existence for them. For a "no nonsense" mainstream description of cloud computing you might want to watch this youTube video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hplXnFUlPmg] [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 20:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,066:
The vast majority of references to "cloud computing" are either high level passing references in the context of discussions about e.g. Google Apps or Salesforce.com or (more often than not) discussion about cloud computing "under the covers". A good example supporting this is that Salesforce.com has always been the number 1 example of SaaS, while "[http://force.com/ Force.com] is Cloud Computing for the Enterprise" (a developer only platform). Microsoft's horse in the cloud computing race is Azure - another developer only technology, and Google App Engine falles squarely under the "cloud computing" umbrella while Google Apps could be better classed SaaS (even if it sits on top of a cloud computing architecture).
In any case the "developer" component is by no means exclusive to the "user" component - indeed the disputed phrase, "development and use of computer technology", should keep both camps happy so this looks a lot like argument for the sake of it. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
: A couple of references in response to [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]]'s request:
Line 1,078:
::I'm not sure what SamJ means by "developer only technology" - [[Windows Azure]] isn't a [[development environment]], it's a cloud services platform! Such platforms may not be directly visible to users (in much the same way as the internals of an OS, or any other "back-end" software, aren't) but it would be misleading to refer to them as "[[Software developer|developer]]" technologies. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 11:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC).
:::Take another look - Azure is of no interest whatsoever to users but the applications which use its components are; if one doesn't look at the components there's very little to say on the subject. It's very much a view of cloud computing as an "operating environment" of sorts, which is an increasingly popular view. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::: [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]], yes, cloud computing ontology is inconsistent and an open area of discussion/research. Here are some references (along with some great diagrams) that are sorting out the naming:
Line 1,086:
:::: [[User:Mwarren us|sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ]] ([[User talk:Mwarren us|talk]]) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::: The reason these diagrams haven't (yet) appeared here is, as you say, they're [[WP:OR|original research]]. That and they're [[Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible|too technical]]. Accordingly we've gone as far as we can without crossing over into OR by breaking what we know is cloud computing into half a dozen categories. Until we have something universally accepted (like the OSI Stack) there's not much more we can do - I'm expecting to see something like this emerge from one of the various standards efforts in 6-12 months and be adopted within 12-24. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::::: [[WP:NOR|No original research]] applies to using Wikipedia to publish original research, but the Youseff2008 paper was [http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~lyouseff/resume.htm published as part of Grid Computing Environments (GCE08)]. I've updated the citation to include the publication info and added a reference for the presentation version. The other two diagrams (Langley, Hoff) might violate [[WP:SPS]] (investigation needed), however, other references you've already allowed in this article are of similar quality and so I figured I would mention them anyway. The diagrams in the article might also fall under the [[WP:SPS]] policy too. Oh and on the complexity - the Youseff2008 diagram is pretty simple as is Langley's; I agree that the Hoff diagram seems pretty complicated at first glance, but the colors help. [[User:Mwarren us|sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ]] ([[User talk:Mwarren us|talk]]) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::: [[WP:SPS]] usually applies to sources written by the article subject - e.g. referencing a company web site, press release or interview in the same company's article to justify a statement like "XYZ is the biggest, baddest company in the industry". It's true that [[WP:OR]] applies to images which is exactly why we haven't been too creative as yet. As I say, when there's a consensus ontology we'll accept it but I think it's a while away yet... a lot of even the academic reports have been heavily criticised by the industry. The 3-layer SaaS, PaaS, IaaS option has got some traction but it doesn't go far enough while the others go too far. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::::: Oh and by the way, [[Wikipedia:OR#Original_images|here's the policy]]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::::: I've been [re]reviewing these references today and it's interesting that IBM should be contributing to the paper given that the resulting diagram is rather incoherent (CaaS? DaaS? !?!?) and that they are [http://jhingran.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83432860e53ef0105358c5768970c-pi actually using] a stack almost identical to the one depicted in the article. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Sun Microsystems? ==
In March 2006, Sun announced a Grid computing service that was very cloud-like and in many ways a precursor to what's happening in cloud today. Would this be worthy of mention in the History section? [[User:Russcastronovo|Russcastronovo]] ([[User talk:Russcastronovo|talk]]) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
: Possibly, though if you're talking about [http://network.com network.com], that was recently pulled to undergo some sort of grid->cloud transition. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
: The service sun provided was indeed at [http://network.com network.com]. It was a $1 per CPU per hour offering and wasn't particularly successful. It did, however, preceed Amazon's offering by a year or so. Would that make it worthy of a brief mention? [[Special:Contributions/192.18.43.225|192.18.43.225]] ([[User talk:192.18.43.225|talk]]) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
: I don't think so, at least not until it reappears (at which time it may well give Amazon a run for their money). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: I think Network.com is certainly worth mentioning as one of the first cloud vendors in a historic sense at least as a pioneer. [[User:Mwarren us|sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ]] ([[User talk:Mwarren us|talk]]) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::It was there when the system was live but not they've pulled it, presumably to move to xVM, the link went too. I don't feel too strongly about that either way. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Criticism ==
Line 1,124:
These offerings may be extended to other Cloud platforms in the future.</blockquote>
Please integrate legitimate criticisms into e.g. the [[Cloud_computing#Key_characteristics|key characteristics]] section. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:Removing sourced information this way is rarely a good idea. While the information gives what appears to be [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to these opinions, removing them completely is just as problematic. Can the information be incorporated more sparingly into other sections of the article? --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed. Tell that to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=269114158&oldid=268683229 these guys]. Anyway the RMS comment was already incorporated into the article before the section was added and the Ellison comment was [http://www.circleid.com/posts/89261_oracle_larry_ellison_cloud_computing/ largely BS] when it was said and now [http://www.crn.com/software/210603480 not at all reflective] of the company's position on cloud computing - people change their minds you know :)
::Anyway my main problem is that sections like this instantly attract rubbish in much the same way as the 'new and improved' intro did. I'll integrate it when I have a spare second (unless you care to do it yourself) but life calls right now. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::The Manual of Style doesn't like them either: {{tl|criticism section}} -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== First use of a cloud picture ==
The first time I saw a picture of a "cloud" being used as an abstraction for a complex networked system was for the [[Public switched telephone network]], so the concept of the picture of a "cloud" for an abstract network is far older than many might think. [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 23:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
: Yeah it's been around for a while. I tried to find a good network diagram with a cloud to illustrate this point a while back, but there were none. As you can see I've finally created something a bit more suitable than the infamous "The Cloud" placeholder image. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Risk mitigation undue weight flag ==
Opened this section for discussion of the undue weight flag added to the [[Cloud Computing#Risk mitigation|Risk mitigation]] section. [[User:Mwarren us|sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ]] ([[User talk:Mwarren us|talk]]) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
: Cool, so the point was that the other sections are derived from almost 100 reasonably reliable sources and are somewhat of a consensus. This entire section is derived from one report/article. It's not to say we shouldn't have a section dealing with risks... just that we should try to find some consensus on the top issues e.g. privacy and security. I think I saw something like this in one of the IDG reports. There was talk of a criticism section (and I think one may have briefly existed) but we generally don't like {{tl|criticism-section}}s. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: OK, so it's mostly a {{fact}} request to insure that all of the risks are covered. While Wikipedia doesn't have two-sources rule like the NY Times, that sounds like good request. [[User:Mwarren us|sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ]] ([[User talk:Mwarren us|talk]]) 04:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Essentially yes. Let's kick off a list of things to hunt for references for. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
* Security (including availability?)
* Performance (including availability?)
Line 1,152:
::: I am in a [http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/site/symposium2009/agenda panel discussion] on cloud computing security at this moment, and the Gartner study was cited by one of the panelists. I have also seen it cited elsewhere. So, I believe it is a trustworthy source. I do not think undue weight is given to this section. [[User:Jeremycec]]
:::: Have removed the template but let's take another look at the section when time permits. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== SAP Business ByDesign ==
Line 1,158:
SAP Business ByDesign is an On-Demand, fully integrated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software that targets business software requirements of small and medium sized enterprises (SME). [1] It is complete Software as a Service (SaaS) offering from SAP AG based at Walldorf, Germany <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Imtiyazali4all|Imtiyazali4all]] ([[User talk:Imtiyazali4all|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Imtiyazali4all|contribs]]) 08:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Hi there. Thanks for that explanation and for trying (yet again) to insert the link into this article. Here's the thing: this article is to tell people what cloud computing is, not advertise services. For most people that means Google. For more advanced people it means Salesforce, and for nerds it means Amazon. For nobody does it mean "SAP Business ByDesign" so giving it as an example serves no purpose but to advertise your product. Please take a look at [[WP:COI]]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Disadvantages ==
Line 1,186:
Is it just me or does this picture make no sense? The way I read it is that for any given number of users I'm going to have a variable cost due to the cloud service, fixed traditional infrastructure cost (which is decreasing as a function of users, why?), and a variable traditional infrastructure cost. I imagine this picture is supposed to illustrate two separate cases: 1) "traditional IT" with fixed infrastructure and variable infrastructure cost, and 2) cloud computing with only variable infrastructure cost. I think the core of this problem is that the areas between the curves are named and shaded, when in reality it's the curves themselves that should be named. There should be four curves in this picture and no shaded areas: 1) fixed traditional IT costs, 2) variable traditional IT costs, 3) total traditional IT costs (1+2), and 4) cloud costs.--[[Special:Contributions/130.233.154.94|130.233.154.94]] ([[User talk:130.233.154.94|talk]]) 12:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
: It seems you're upset because there's no fixed costs listed for cloud computing, which is because they're negligible and the message anyway is the shift from capex (+opex) to opex. But you're right about what the picture is supposed to illustrate - it's worked well for other audiences so I can only assume you are the exception - I don't see how removing the shading and adding another line would help. In any case the figures are referenced at [[:File:Cloud_computing_economics.svg]]. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: I have no problem with cloud computing not having fixed costs represented. The picture uses shading and labeling to indicate that the areas between the curves related to the various values. Look at the dark red area, "Fixed Costs", it is not fixed but instead decreases as a function of users. The core problem is that it is not the areas between the curves, but the curves themselves that represent the various values. I will fix it when I have the time.--[[Special:Contributions/82.130.34.126|82.130.34.126]] ([[User talk:82.130.34.126|talk]]) 08:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,234:
* [http://thenextweb.com/2008/10/27/windows-azure-a-clear-perspective-on-cloud-computing/ Windows Azure: A clear perspective on cloud computing]
Please talk first rather than reverting reverts in future, but feel free to expand on the base definition using the best references you can find (extracting signal from the noise can be difficult). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
Oops - I just realised the definition wasn't referenced... it is now. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
: I'm not sure what you're saying here - are you claiming that the validity of a definition given in a WP article can be measured by the number of journalists who are lazy enough to cut'n'paste from said article?! I'm sorry, but the phrase ''Internet ("cloud") based development and use of computer technology ("computing")'' is far too vague a definition, IMHO. Lots of "computer technology" is developed and/or used via the Internet, but little of it could be considered "cloud computing", even in the most general sense. For instance, is downloading a file by FTP or accessing a remote CVS repository "cloud computing"? Both would fit that definition.
:: This is a recurrent discussion, but yes, from a user-centric PoV if they can consume raw (FTP, eg [http://www.nirvanix.com/FTPProxy.aspx CloudNAS]) or 'enhanced' (CVS) storage without having to concern themselves with the inner workings then sure it fits; finally we're starting to look at computing from the user's point of view rather than having technology for the sake of technology. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::: When I mentioned FTP or CVS, I meant the kinds of things people were using the Internet for more than 20 years ago; before "Web 1.0", never mind "Web 2.0". That was still "Internet-based development and use of computer technology". [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC).
Line 1,246:
: The "scalable" and "real-time" qualifiers came from the InfoWorld article I cited, which seemed like a pretty good introduction to the subject [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
::If it's that good a resource then add it to the external links, and refine the base definition accordingly. I maintain that neither ''real-time'' nor ''scalable'' are requisites for cloud computing but that's not to stop them being used as examples. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:Furthermore, of the two references now given for the current first sentence, one explicitly quotes this article(!), and the other is dated January 6 this year, so is highly likely to have been a cut'n'paste from this article. Indirect self-references are obviously ''not'' valid references! (see [[WP:RS]]). [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 21:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
::The articles were selected because they assessed/validated the definition rather than just regurgitating it. In any case I've added a whitepaper on the subject which goes into more detail. Given the InfoWorld article predates [http://cloudcomputing.sys-con.com/node/612375 most of the discussion] around the definition, more recent articles better reflect the consensus of the community. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::: So now there are three refs for the opening statement; they're all dated December 2008 or January 2009, contain phrases that are suspiciously similar to this article around the same dates and hence are almost certainly ''indirect self-references''. These are fundamentally wrong by the rules of WP! [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
::Ok so I've gone over the article and references again and while not an absolute requirement I agree that some reference to "agile, scalable infrastructure", real-time scalability, etc. is useful so I've expanded the intro paragraph accordingly. I hope you are more satisfied with the result now. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::Okay, to recap, in the absence of any further objection, I'm proposing deleting the first sentence (apart from the obvious "Cloud computing is...") on the grounds that (a) it doesn't really add anything to the current first paragraph and (b) as I say above, the references given appear to be indirect self-references. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC).
Line 1,266:
::::*"Cloud computing refers to the use of Internet-based (i.e. Cloud) computer technology for a variety of services (including storage capacity, processing power, business applications or components)."
:::: The intro has been discussed to death already and we've finally found something that's been stable for months, except that every once in a while someone wanders in and insists on foisting their narrow view on the rest of us. Enough already. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::: FWIW, the intro has been discussed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloud_computing/Archive_1#Introductory_sub_section here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloud_computing/Archive_1#Introduction here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloud_computing/Archive_1#Introduction_opaque here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloud_computing/Archive_1#Introduction_paragraph here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloud_computing#Intro here] so you can see why I'm bored already... no offense. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::: I'm not really interested in foisting any narrow view on anybody; I'm quite willing to debate whether "real-time" or "scalable" or anything else are defining attributes of cloud computing. What I am interested in is trying to improve an opening sentence that gives a near-meaningless definition which doesn't distinguish cloud computing from pretty much ''anything'' you would use the Internet for, and a bunch of supporting references which appear to me to have used ''this very article'' as their ''own'' source.
Line 1,290:
: I changed the first sentence to a very light paraphrasing of the third quote [[User:SamJohnston]] has given above, which I considered to be an improvement on the previous sentence - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&oldid=268895493 here]. [[User:CloudComputing]] then attempted to expand this and give another ref shortly afterwards. I assumed SamJohnston would have no objections to me using the quote he himself provided on this talk page, but I agree CloudComputing's additions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=269000024&oldid=268962247] probably don't clarify matters much. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC).
:: It seems there were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=268998699&oldid=268895493 a few] different accounts involved, but the problem is that as soon as anyone starts listing anything in this article those of us who maintain it end up spending half our lives reverting additions - within a day or two that list would have grown to 10 or 15 items. You show me a more precise definition than 'internet based development and use of computer technology' and I'll show you an example of something that doesn't fit. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::: Okay, let's try that again without the list:
Line 1,300:
::: I strongly agree with Letdorf. ''"If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them"'' --[[User:Emrekenci|Emre Kenci]] ([[User talk:Emrekenci|talk]]) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: Did you actually read the thread? Anyway I see you've broken the intro again this afternoon - so long as we're talking minutiae about appropriate use of parenthesis and square quotes how about you tell me where it says you can have parentheses without leading spaces? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::: You're right it does not say that anywhere so instead of calling you an abuser like you did, I corrected it. I didnt read the whole threat but I read this part: "''[[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:NVC]] have some words of wisdom on this.''" by Letdorf. And I still strongly agree with that. --[[User:Emrekenci|Emre Kenci]] ([[User talk:Emrekenci|talk]]) 12:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
: Are you guys having fun yet? The intro's a !#$%@( mess again. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: The current first sentence of the intro comes from one of the quotes ''you'' have cited above, in support of the previous version. Surely you're not objecting to that? I could probably come up with something better, but I decided to compromise, given your intransigence over previous attempts to improve the intro. By the way, have you read [[WP:CIVIL]]? [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC).
::: Never mind, I already cleaned it up -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::: I've been pondering over the [[WP:LEAD]] and have discussed it with a few colleagues... the previous version (which was in place without incident for months) is more informative than the current "for a variety of services" wording and as such has been replaced. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::: The place to discuss making changes to this article is ''here''. Consensus in Wikipedia is built among WP editors, not among one editor and his mates! [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
:::::: These "mates" happen to include some of the most active people in the cloud computing commmunity and until such time as I can convince them to get involved I am their only representation here. In any case, proposing such a controversial edit to a stable article and then implementing it in the absence of consensus is not on. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::::: Regardless of the activities of your acquaintances, this is at best [[WP:OR|original research]]. Controversial? This time I deliberately used a quote (verbatim) ''and'' a source ''you'' had given previously in this discussion, in an attempt to be as un-controversial as possible! It's obvious you have no real interest in building [[WP:CONS|consensus]] here. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 15:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC).
:::::::: It's well sourced so hardly [[WP:OR|original research]] and there have been two people outside of us contribute to this discussion over six weeks - one wanted to talk about quotes and parenthesis and the other provided a quote that talked about software architecture (e.g. development). I see that as an indication that it's a non-issue for most people and that we would be better to focus our energies elsewhere. Status quo reflects the views of both users and developers while suggested alternatives ignore the latter. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
I seem to have inadvertently stepped into a sh*t storm by removing the first sentence. My rationale for removing it was that it's a completely vacuous sentence, and I'm not sure it's even grammatically correct. In any case, it starts out by "Cloud computing is ..." leading me to believe that what follows is a definition of what cloud computing is. Instead I'm told that it is something that is: 1) "Internet based", and 2) a "use of computer technology". That definition matches about a million different terms and tells me nothing of value. It also sets the whole tone of the article as a lackluster soup of marketing terms. I was reverted as "per talk page", but I fail to see any consensus for it here. Instead I see a number of people expressing concerns over the intro in general and the first sentence in particular, and one editor who is disregarding everyone else's arguments.--[[Special:Contributions/130.233.154.94|130.233.154.94]] ([[User talk:130.233.154.94|talk]]) 12:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,323:
: Yes, as you can see, I've been trying to persuade [[User:SamJohnston]] for some time now with the same argument, but to no avail. A clear case of [[WP:OWN]] it seems to me. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 13:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
:: Remind me again why the definition needs to be any more concise, particularly in the absence of a formal definition (and indeed an authorative body with which to create one)? There was no precise definition for the last [[paradigm shift]], client-server, and there need not be here either. If anything this is simply client-server->client-cloud; the shifting of "computing" to the Internet. The assumption is that "cloud" is things like Amazon EC2, which is definitely not the case; most deployments (google, salesforce, etc.) have no virtualisation whatsoever, and yet we talk about this in the lead which is at least a partial concession to Letdorf's demands (above). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::: User:130.233.154.94 has explained it pretty well above; there's no point in me trying to spell it out yet again. And I see [[User:Eleven even]] seems to have been of the same opinion, but as usual, their contribution has been reverted. So, to recap, in the last few months, myself, Tdanecker, 130.233.154.94 and Eleven even seem to broadly agree that the first sentence of this article is poor, but our opinions don't seem to count here, apparently. You even slapped a [[:Template:uw-vandal]] on 130.233.154.94 for their troubles, which is well out of order. And whether virtualisation is an intrinsic part of cloud computing is a different debate; what we're talking about here is trying to write meaningful English. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 10:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
Here's the Wall Street Journal's latest definition which is hours old ([http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802623665542725.html The Internet Industry Is on a Cloud -- Whatever That May Mean]). Thanks for the ongoing [[WP:HOUND]]ing though - good to see nothing's changed. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
{{quotation|1=In its broadest sense, cloud computing describes something apparent to anybody who uses the Internet: Information is stored and processed on computers somewhere else -- "in the clouds" -- and brought back to your screen.}}
: That is an exceptionally bad definition, and the WSJ is not the right source to look for one. It's like starting [[Shoe]] with: "Shoes are collections of atoms." I don't know what kind of conspiracy you think there is against you, but I was simply trying to do my small part to fix an obviously bad first sentence of the article. There are many, many problems with the article as a whole, but apparently nobody is allowed to fix any of them.--[[Special:Contributions/130.233.238.136|130.233.238.136]] ([[User talk:130.233.238.136|talk]]) 13:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Actually for the average person this is what cloud means, and in any case it's the most reliable source we have. Some people (above) think of it as scalable infrastructure, virtualisation, etc. but the reality is that for the vast majority cloud = Google. For the advanced cloud = Salesforce and for nerds (above) it means Amazon. Is Gmail a "''dynamically scalable and often virtualised resource provided as a service''"? Clearly not. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::: Google, Salesforce, Amazon or Gmail are not clouds. Three of those are companies, one is a free email service.--[[Special:Contributions/130.233.154.94|130.233.154.94]] ([[User talk:130.233.154.94|talk]]) 10:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
:::: Are you arguing for my case or against it? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
::::: I have no idea what your case is. The old first sentence was bad, the current is acceptable.--[[Special:Contributions/130.233.154.94|130.233.154.94]] ([[User talk:130.233.154.94|talk]]) 13:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,435:
{{criticism}}
: We need to present a balanced view but keep it [[WP:NPOV|neutral]]. Criticism sections tend not to be neutral, hence "key characteristics" (which can be positive, negative or both). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Types: North Korean Cloud - ? ==
Line 1,441:
Someone's political attempt at humor? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.234.123.121|69.234.123.121]] ([[User talk:69.234.123.121|talk]]) 20:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: lol. looks like it's been removed already. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Huh??? ==
Line 1,448:
: '''Thank You.''' I couldn't agree more. [[User:842U|842U]] ([[User talk:842U|talk]]) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
:: Ironically I agree with you both... to the unwashed masses "cloud" simply means "out there on the Internet" (consider the Sidekick debacle which was nothing like a "real" cloud architecture and yet which was widely reported as "cloud"). Furthermore cloud need not be scalable, virtualised (services like [[Amazon EC2]] are in the minority compared to e.g. Google, Yahoo!, etc.), utility billed (most of it's free!) or any of the other things it's often associated with. If we look at the history of the cloud itself, it was introduced by telcos in network diagrams to denote "stuff you don't have to care about" (where previously users had to deal with every single link and node). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Good Article/Featured Article Status ==
I'd rather like to see if we can tidy up this article and get it to [[WP:GA|Good Article]] or even [[WP:FA|Featured Article]] status. It's been repeatedly tagged recently as {{tl|tech jargon}} despite my efforts to make it more approachable for your average Wikipedia user. Furthermore efforts to "ring-fence" the term have failed and as evidenced by the Sidekick debacle, for the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia readers "cloud" simply means "out there on the Internet". As a result we're [http://www.rackspacecloud.com/what_is_cloud_computing getting back to basics] and leaving the [http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/cloud-computing/index.html more complex details] to the experts. Anyway, please let me know if you're interested in helping out either here or by email. Cheers. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:Sounds like a great idea! [[User:842U|842U]] ([[User talk:842U|talk]]) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
:: Cool. You're welcome to help out if you like. There was a great article in the Economist last week that gives a good layman's overview of cloud computing: [http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14637206 Clash of the clouds]... probably as good a starting point as ever and we'll struggle to find a more reliable source. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::I was able to read that entire article and not get lost, and not have anything in the article contradict my layman's understanding of cloud computing. And clearly, if the Economist article is true, then more and more people will arrive at the Wikpedia article looking for an understanding of 'the cloud.' It may be that this article just needs some crucial introductory information before it 'descends' into the minutiae of how and what 'cloud computing' consists of. Hopefully this is constructive feedback.[[User:842U|842U]] ([[User talk:842U|talk]]) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: It's not simple wikipedia but it needs to be approachable, so we need to find a balance. It's also worth noting that there are many conflicting views, ranging from "anything out there" to a fine grained set of tests as to what's in and what's not... see my [http://samj.net/2009/10/cloud-or-not.html tongue-in-cheek flowchart] for some of the characteristics that have been suggested as litmus tests. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
Is there a way to say this in a more straightforward way: ''Technically it typically involves the provision of '''dynamically scalable''' and '''often virtualised resources''' as a service over the Internet.'' ?? [[User:842U|842U]] ([[User talk:842U|talk]]) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
: Virtualisation is not really relevant in most cases - e.g. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and even most of Amazon's services... even scalability is more of a side effect than an absolute requirement (consider the company with a static 100 users - they can still benefit from cloud but never need scalability). The key thing is the outsourcing component - like when the cloud was first introduced to denote services provided by telcos that displaced privately run WANs. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: That article made a lot more sense than the wikipedia one. It would be best to explain cloud computing as an expansion of a client-server model which most people are familiar with or can be quickly explained. That is all cloud computing essentially is. The big difference is the architectural model is more complex (although the definition is vague enough to label a single server and client that do web-email as cloud computing). I would say the problem with the article actually stems from the vagueness of what cloud computing actually is. [[Special:Contributions/64.148.241.133|64.148.241.133]] ([[User talk:64.148.241.133|talk]]) 08:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
::: It's true that cloud computing is like client-server, but is it useful to make the comparison? The main difference is that the "server" is the cloud, which appears as a single endpoint. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Nonsense ==
The article is written as if by a specialist for a specialist. Hence, it's not useful. Worse, it's useless. [[User:842U|842U]] ([[User talk:842U|talk]]) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
: Welcome back from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:842U your block] 842U. Are we going to be constructive this time round or are we just trolling again? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:: I have to agree with 842U, this article doesn't use much real computing terminology to define the actual mechanisms of cloud computing. It's very difficult to decide the relationship between cloud computing and other client/server paradigms with this article the way it is. It uses a lot of poorly-defined jargon to try defining cloud computing and spends more space than is useful on the effects of cloud computing, which makes it seem like it's appealing to businesses. If anything, this article makes cloud computing sound like it should be added to [[List of corporate jargon]]. Essentially: needs more science. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Willhig|Willhig]] ([[User talk:Willhig|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Willhig|contribs]]) 04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 1,483:
:::This article on cloud computing is poorly written. It has nothing to do with a reader's IQ. It has to do with the ability of the writer to convey the information in the simplest terms. Ergo, it is the writer who is lacking in talent/IQ and not the reader. You can compare two math books and you will see: most people can't understand higher math because the guy writing it can't understand how to convey information in simplest terms. The goal is understanding and not obfuscation or worse, to show how 'smart' the writer must be. If the writer can't clearly explain what cloud computing is in 25 words or less, the writer shouldn't be writing about it.[[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]])
: At Wikipedia we comment on the content, not the contributor - is it really necessary to say things like "it is the [unpaid volunteer] writer who is lacking in talent/IQ" to get your point about the article across? No. This is not the simple english wikipedia so we don't have to cater only to the lowest common denominator - many of the people reading/contributing to the article are IT professionals. The subject (under the covers at least) is quite complex and if you look at articles like [[DNA sequencing]] it is clearly not unusual to have technically complex articles on Wikipedia. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
== Over-centralisation is evil ==
Line 1,496:
:I agree that the first paragraph doesn't tell you much. I am still not sure how cloud computing differs from the old client-server set up of the old mainframe era especially in the light of the recent [http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/11/microsofts_danger_sidekick_data_loss_casts_dark_on_cloud_computing.html Microsoft Danger fiasco] where the cloud going down had ''exactly'' the same effect as a mainframe connected to a "smart" client going down. The liability issues of such a system have already come up with Kindle with Amazon using its cloud to enforce Copyright law and getting so much bad PR that they promised never to do that again.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 16:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:: While you're absolutely right about the need to tread carefully, this isn't really an appropriate forum for discussing personal opinions about technology. Please try to focus on how this energy can be channeled towards improving the article. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::I am not discussing Personal feelings but the concerns of ''reliable sources'': InfoWorld ("The dangers of cloud computing" Jul 7, 2008), Richard Stallman (Sep 29, 2008, "Cloud computing is a trap, warns GNU founder"), BusinessWeek (Mar 25, 2009 "Cloud Computing: Understand the Risks"); Information Security Resources (Oct 26, 2009 "Sidekick Goof Shows Cloud Computing Risks"); and EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley (Feb 10, 2009 "Above the clouds: A berkeley view of cloud computing") all of which point out the issues I have presented above. DEAL WITH IT!--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: Easy tiger. If you want it in the article and know how to use the talk page then you have the means & motivation to do it yourself - just don't create another "criticism" coatrack, rather integrate it into the appropriate section and keep it balanced/neutral. Remember that one person's privacy or security problem is another's feature (I'd much rather my data be in the cloud than lugged around on someone's laptop or USB key for example). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::::Except as one of the references use in the lead in just what "cloud computing" even is is a little on the vague side. As for 'integrate it rather than have a criticism section' idea I have found that to be Doublespeak for 'let bury this within the flow of the text so people can't easily find out what problems this has'.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,544:
<blockquote>''This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in those sections into the article as a whole.''</blockquote>
: Criticism sections tend to end up being coatracks for soundbytes that add little value and are often misrepresentative; valid criticisms should be integrated into the appropriate part(s) of the article. The three [in]famous quotes you've provided are individual opinions and misrepresent the positions of the free software community, Forrester and Oracle, and the primary criticism (a "seemingly broad and vague definition") is weak in comparison to the real issues around security, privacy, liability, etc. - "client/server" applies to virtually everything we do with computers these days but you don't see people bitching about its' definition now, do you? I've copied the section below for you to integrate into the relevant section(s) but I would suggest focusing on the issues rather than individuals' opinions. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
<blockquote>''Critics of cloud computing cite its seemingly broad and vague definition. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison observes that cloud computing has been defined as "everything that we currently do" <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FacYAI6DY0 Larry Ellison - What The Hell Is Cloud Computing?]</ref><ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html Oracle's Ellison nails cloud computing]</ref>. Forrester VP Frank Gillett expresses similar criticism <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7wv1i8ubng Cloud Computing is Hyped and Overblown, Forrester's]</ref>. Many technologies that have been branded as "cloud computing" have existed for a long time before the "cloud" label came into existence. Examples include databases<ref>[http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/voice-recognition-gets-cloudy-will-soon-rival-humans.ars Voice recognition gets "cloudy," but is it the "new touch"?]</ref>, load balanced on-demand web hosting services <ref name="rackspacecloud.com">[http://www.rackspacecloud.com/cloud_hosting_products The Rackspace Cloud™ Hosting Products]</ref>, network storage<ref name="rackspacecloud.com"/><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/04/cloud.computing.hunt/index.html A trip into the secret, online 'cloud']</ref>, real time online services <ref>[http://blogs.idc.com/ie/?p=422 Defining “Cloud Services” – an IDC update]</ref>, hosted services in general <ref>[http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid201_gci1287881,00.html What is cloud computing?]</ref>, etc.''</blockquote>
Line 1,551:
:: "I would suggest focusing on the issues rather than individuals' opinions." Good advice. In this case the issue is that cloud computing has been defined as everything that we currently do. This fact is supported by the two industry CEOs that I cited. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.142.40.6|64.142.40.6]] ([[User talk:64.142.40.6|talk]]) 19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::: By "tend to end up being coatracks" I mean "has in the past for this specific article". We rapidly end up with a sprawling mass of everything negative that's ever been said about the subject rather than a coherent discussion of each of the issues in turn. If you want to discuss privacy then create or extend a privacy section and describe the pros and cons; information is outside of your control (-ve) but doesn't get carted around on USB keys etc. (+ve). Regarding the definition, what we have is accurate and need not be precise - client/server was not precise and nobody cared. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
:::: Re: "We rapidly end up with a sprawling mass of everything negative that's ever been said about the subject." And that is justification for removal? That's like me removing the entire cloud computing page because it breeds controversy and disagreement. Proponents may disagree with the critics, but that's no reason to nuke the whole thing. In fact, neutrality demands opposing viewpoints, does it not? Also, it's not hard to label the entire rest of the cloud computing article as a sprawling mass... it's a massive topic with tons of applications, not that this is necessarily a bad thing. [[Special:Contributions/64.142.40.6|64.142.40.6]] ([[User talk:64.142.40.6|talk]]) 20:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
| |||