Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Cloud computing) (bot |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Cloud computing) (bot |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
Cloud computing is split into three categories: SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS. The article focuses heavily on SaaS, with some parts of the overview only true of SaaS, and not of PaaS or IaaS. I've tried to fix this while making minimal changes to the article structure. The old "Layers" section and accompanying graphic seemed to imply that cloud computing requires a cloud client, a cloud application, a cloud platform, a cloud infrastructure, and a cloud server. Hopefully my edits have clarified that this is not the case.[[User:Jbucket|Jbucket]] ([[User talk:Jbucket|talk]]) 20:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
: I'm not sure it really helped — particularly bundling clients with application. Perhaps it is worth explicitly mentioning though that cloud platforms need not be built on top of cloud infrastructure, etc. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub
:: Where is the "heavy focus on SaaS"? Got any specific examples to fix? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub
== History of the Cloud ==
Line 13:
:: The Simon Wardely quote sounds like some marketing/research group hype that you wouldn't put in a defensible research paper. It may be Simon's job to say statements that appear to be profound at conferences, but that doesn't make it true. [[User:SteveLoughran|SteveLoughran]] ([[User talk:SteveLoughran|talk]]) 16:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: For what it's worth Simon's generally on point and goes into far more depth with the non-technical issues than most (Joe Weinman is another, and he does [http://www.joeweinman.com/Resources/Joe_Weinman_As_Time_Goes_By.pdf publish] [http://www.joeweinman.com/Resources/Joe_Weinman_Axiomatic_Cloud_Theory.pdf papers]). That said, if his opinions aren't delivered by/with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] then they aren't appropriate for inclusion per [[WP:OPINON]] ("the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue"). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub
:: Can you suggest how do we determine reliability in an area that is still evolving? Or should we continue to say the earth is flat and be afraid of saying the earth is round? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Watal|Watal]] ([[User talk:Watal|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Watal|contribs]]) 15:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 39:
[[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 02:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
: Refer to the archives for (extensive) discussions on the topic. Regarding "Internet" vs "network", I agree but the market doesn't — there's a huge amount of activity in "cloud" computing that is not connected to the Internet and I think we need to be compatible with this alternative definition (which goes beyond [[WP:FRINGE]]). Finally, web search is, arguably, a cloud service. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub
:: I have read the discussion as suggested, and I can see that a great deal of effort has gone into arriving at a definition, often in difficult circumstances. However, I don’t think the definition is completely accurate, sufficiently inclusive or specific.
Line 56:
Risks of cloud computing should be mentioned in this article to balance it.
If a full discussion of risk factors is not deemed necessary a reference should be provided. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.77.12.6|173.77.12.6]] ([[User talk:173.77.12.6|talk]]) 07:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Your risk (e.g. multi-tenancy) is my benefit — hence the "Issues" section which avoids the whole pro/con argument. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub
: I agree with this comment, and I believe that there should be separate Advantages and Risks sections. After all, any development of computing is done because there are advantages, at least to some consumers/providers, but also there are always risks. Any pro/con arguments can be dealt with using references, and by clearly stating who is the beneficiary or risk taker. For example, there are many legal sites that discuss some of the issues/risks, including privacy for consumers, and many IT users agree that one of their benefits is financial - ie reduced TCO. [[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Line 69:
This risk is not mentioned in the voice and when some months ago I inserted it was immediately deleted from someone. --[[User:Cornelius383|Cornelius383]] ([[User talk:Cornelius383|talk]]) 19:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
: As one of the people who was actively promoting the term "cloud" to describe a number of trends we were observing 5 years ago, I can assure you that it is not as nefarious as it seems (despite ill-conceived efforts by large vendors to try to take control). The concept you describe is an important issue, but your view is unbalanced — the incentives for centralisation (in terms of economies of scale, natural monopolies, etc.) are strong but on the other hand the risks need to be quantified and mitigated using the available options — reject it (not going to happen due to market forces), accept it (dangerous, as you explain), reduce it (for example through backups/synchronosiation/etc) and/or assign it (for example, by taking out insurance). I'm sure people would have argued against the introduction of the power grid (electricity as a service) too, for all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons — remember there would have been a large established industry around the provision and operation of generators (electricity as a product). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small><sub
: This seems to be a discussion of the subject, rather than how to improve the article. [[User:Fcalculators|Fcalculators]] ([[User talk:Fcalculators|talk]]) 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Line 407:
* '''Support merge'''. I don't seem to grasp the logic of an Encyclopedia holding a universe of articles '''plus''' another parallel universe of ''"Introduction To..."'' articles on the same subjects. It would be not only unnecessary, it would be simply ridiculous. --[[User:AVM|AVM]] ([[User talk:AVM|talk]]) 16:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support merge BUT''' This article is already uncomfortably long, and merging the very valuable content from ''Introduction'' will push it beyond practical. Likely we will need to split off bits and pieces soon anyway, and some elements of ''Introduction'' might then rate their own, something like ''specialised language of cloud computing'', &c. [[User:Yamaplos|<
* '''Support merge'''. I suspect that, once merged, users would benefit from seeing terms such as "Platform as a Service", "Software as a Service", etc, and "Public Cloud" and "Private Cloud" being the focus of the article. When I say focus, I mean these things should appear first and be prominent. A Wikipedia article isn't a treatise or a thesis on a topic. Words like 'metaphor', 'model' and 'heterogeneous', 'abstraction' and 'denote' obfuscate the topic. The tone of many Wikipedia articles seems to be more about the practical and less about the theoretical, especially with regard to an article like this. Both articles could use a lot of editing (removal of content) once merged. [[User:SunKing2|SunKing2]] ([[User talk:SunKing2|talk]]) 09:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 466:
::::The refs are attached to the following statement in the article: "The name comes from the use of a cloud-shaped symbol". If these are not intended as sources for the expression it seems like they're misplaced. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 22:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
::::These patents are very interesting but the second patent is not a [[WP:RS|reliable]] [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]]. A reliable secondary source would be an newspaper or magazine article or a book that referred to the patents and drew conclusions about them. [[User:Jojalozzo|<
:::::The second patent 5,790,548 was not the unedited writings of four engineers that was rubber stamped and printed by the US Patent Office. This patent was rewritten by patent lawyers working for the independent law firm of Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel and further edited by the US Patent Office examiner. The rewrite process provided by the lawyers was every bit as rigorous and critical as that provided by the editorial staff of a book publishing or newspaper or magazine publishing company. And their polished work was given further critical review by the patent examiner whose job is to reject ambigous, vague, or misleading text or drawings, mistatements of fact, and self-serving puffery. If the expression "cloud" as a metaphor for the Internet had been deemed too silly or confusing, one of the lawyers or the examiner would have required a different expression. Patents that were edited by law firm lawyers are reliable sources. [[User:Greensburger|Greensburger]] ([[User talk:Greensburger|talk]]) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Patents are not sources for statements about who originated certain terminology and neither of these patents make any claims about originating the term. That could be a trademark issue but not patent issue. We need a source that states this is the origin or even "one of the earliest uses" of the term. It's not our role to [[WP:OR|do that research ourselves]]. I have removed the citations as unnecessary in the lead. If we have consensus here to use those sources to show the origin of the term they can be used in a terminology or etymology section. [[User:Jojalozzo|<
:::::::I agree that a reliable reference for origination of the "cloud" symbol would be a good addition to this article. But the references to the patents bear on a different issue, the fact that the term "cloud" was and is a generic symbol for the Internet or similar network, without providing the complex details of its structure, just as a picture of a car is a generic symbol that implies the complex internals (engine, ignition circuitry, etc), regardless of who first used the symbol. [[User:Greensburger|Greensburger]] ([[User talk:Greensburger|talk]]) 02:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The statement where they were used for reference concerned a) the source of the term and b) the use of a cloud as an graphical abstraction of complex infrastructure. We agree that the referenced patents do not support (a) and I see no support for (b) either. They just say they use a cloud, not why they use it. There must be more recent sources that support (b) directly. You are clearly an excellent researcher and I'm sure you can locate what we need. However, we don't need references in the lead as long as we cover the statements later in the main body of the article. [[User:Jojalozzo|<
== Reference 1 holds only definitions for IaaS, Paas and SaaS ==
Line 515:
== Historical contribution of Biju John and Souheil Khaddaj ==
I have removed content added to the history section concerning a paper or book by Biju John and Souheil Khaddaj because it appears to be primarily promotion of their work rather than historical information. Two sources offered are links to general commercial content about cloud, unrelated to the cited work. The source that appears to support the cited work uses an unpublished, incorrect or non-existent ISBN, possibly for proceedings of a conference (which are not highly reliable, just a notch away from self-published). Even if this turns out to be a valid document, I don't see that it is a historical contribution. It may have a place elsewhere in the article but not in the history section. (Similarly other content that's only months or a year or two old do not belong in the history section and appear more to be [[WP:NOT#NEWS|news-related rather than encyclopedic]].) [[User:Jojalozzo|<
== Modern Origins Of Cloud Computing ==
Line 533:
== RfC: Limitations on list of cloud services ==
Is there value in listing every reliably sourced cloud service <u>in the introduction</u> on this page? If so, should we require sources for new additions? [[User:Jojalozzo|<
===Survey===
*'''No and Yes''' - I think the "Kitchen sink as a service (KSaaS)" meme is losing strength and as more and more refined niche services are offered, the colliding "aaS" acronyms become less and less meaningful. I propose we shorten the "aaS" list back to the standard five or six layer stack and list some examples of the varieties of services that use that architecture without the "as as service" suffixes or "aaS" acronyms. However, if we want to allow the list to grow let's set some limits and require every entry have a reliable secondary source. At the very least if we are going to let the list grow, we should move it out of the introduction. [[User:Jojalozzo|<
*'''No''' - The whole .aaS thing is semantic gobbledygook that should be removed with extreme prejudice. [[User:The Editorial Voice|The Editorial Voice]] ([[User talk:The Editorial Voice|talk]]) 22:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''No'''' This list needs to be [[WP:V|verifiable]]. It should be trimmed back to what's mentioned in citation [1]. If the list wants to be larger, someone needs to find a better citation. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 14:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''No''' Agreement with [[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] [[User:SimonBramfitt|SimonBramfitt]] ([[User talk:SimonBramfitt|talk]]) 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''No'''Make a new section in the article ―'''[[User:Rosscoolguy|<
*'''No''' Only the first paragraph should be in the lede. ''On the assumption'' that the rest of the (current) lede is adequately verified by its citation, I don't much mind the rest of the lede, but only if the first para is followed by a suitable section heading such as "Overview" or "Introduction". If there were not an RFC in progress, I would immediately have inserted one myself. Of course, FAIK the rest of the text needs a lot of work, but that is another matter. Without going into the matter personally however, I cannot accept the "gobbledygook-deletion-with-extreme-prejudice" without prejudice; IMO one needs a bit more precise and explicit justification for such action. As I am not closely concerned with CC myself, I am not willing to undertake such evaluations and actions myself, but I would like to see a more substantial rationale from anyone urging such measures. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 06:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Line 547:
*I assume you're talking about the list in the lead. Yes? -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 14:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*:Yes, I added a clarifying phrase. Thanks . [[User:Jojalozzo|<
*'''Create new article for the list'''. I suggest creating an article along the lines of [[List of cloud computing services]]. <span style="color:orange">[[User:Andrewman327|Andrew]]<sup>[[User talk:Andrewman327|327]]</sup></span> 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
::You're free to create that separate list and that would be a good solution if we were discussing a large list in the body of the article. But, I don't think this has much bearing on the question of what should be listed in the lead. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 18:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 714:
== Merge from [[cloud computing architecture]] ==
This article appears to be largely repetitive with the main cloud computing article, and most of its content arguably belongs here. -- [[User:SamJ|samj]] <small><sub
== Questioning whether Cloud is an appropriate separate term ==
Line 722:
My question, for discussion: what is the best way to advance some of this in the context of the Wikipedia article? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dudewhereismybike|Dudewhereismybike]] ([[User talk:Dudewhereismybike|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dudewhereismybike|contribs]]) 00:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: With 150,000 Google Scholar hits I'd suggest that cloud computing is a lot more than a "marketing phrase" (even if it is routinely abused by vendors). -- [[User:SamJ|samj]] <small><sub
== Getting the definition in the introduction section right ==
Line 728:
I removed the new definition added by Science.Warrior and put mine back in as the first definition. Besides fixing the grammar in the introductory section, the newer simpler definition proposed was not accurate without including the role of virtualization. It would be the equivalent of describing a car and not mentioning that it has an engine until a later section. I disagree that this makes it too complicated the way it is written, because readers can jump to the virtualization article if they so wish. Also, the definition put in its place unnecessarily oversimplified the concept of cloud. It equates the cloud with any computer network - Internet, intranet, LAN or WAN, without mentioning the critical role of virtual servers.[[User:Timtempleton|Timtempleton]] ([[User talk:Timtempleton|talk]]) 02:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
: The majority of the lede now rambles about virtualisation, and yet the technology is absolutely optional and is used sparingly, if at all, in delivery of many/most cloud computing services. The Google platform, for example, runs on bare metal (even if they also offer GCE, which is negligible in comparison with the rest of their footprint). Sure it's relevant to cloud infrastructure, but not to the general concept of cloud. -- [[User:SamJ|samj]] <small><sub
::Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate how everyone wants to get this right. Nobody wants to be a contributor to an article that is held up by the critics as an example of poor educational quality. However, are not Google's cloud storage [[Google_Storage#Design|"buckets"]] themselves a form of virtual storage, and therefore part of the virtualization discussion? [[Amazon S3|Amazon's S3]] storage units are also derived from virtual buckets. If you feel the intro rambles, it may be because of the attempt to clarify the term for laymen. Please feel free to modify it to better suit your preferred style of writing.[[User:Timtempleton|Timtempleton]] ([[User talk:Timtempleton|talk]]) 18:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
::: Yes, in addition to hardware (cores), we also virtualise storage, memory, networks, etc. — this is not in any way unique to cloud computing though. A lot of people assume that cloud is somehow equivalent to, or dependent on, hardware virtualisation. That's just not the case — sure most infrastructure services use it to divide physical machines between multiple customers, but we're increasingly seeing "bare metal" services offering direct access to the underlying hardware, so it's optional there too. -- [[User:SamJ|samj]] <small><sub
== Inappropriate external links ==
Line 749:
* [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/08/email-company-reportedly-used-by-edward-snowden-shuts-down-rather-than-hand-data-over-to-feds/ Forbes article: security issues arising from Snowden situation]
* [http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Cloud_Computing/ DMOZ: Cloud Computing Category]
[[User:Jojalozzo|<
:Only my two cents, but I would not say all of these links have the same level of value. Some are very broad, other very specific, and some tangential. For example, the NIST papers seem appropriate, whereas the Ed Snowden item is tangential at best. The others are in between. The specific link I added a year ago (on Microsoft TechNet) is the broadest page I could link to about Microsoft's technical content for cloud (not marketing content). Hence, I considered it useful & not gratuitous. Thanks. [[User:Scott.somohano|Scott.somohano]] ([[User talk:Scott.somohano|talk]]) 01:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
::Use them as sources but they don't qualify as external links. [[User:Jojalozzo|<
::: That's the thing. Some of them can and do qualify under item #3 of [[WP:ELYES]]:
::::''Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.''
Line 760:
:::::: I think 'manufacturers, suppliers or customers' can be reasonably interpreted to include commercial entities that deliver the related product/service. Would you agree? -[[User:SFK2|SFK2]] ([[User talk:SFK2|talk]]) 02:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Sure, but you're citing only part of ELNO #14 out of its context. The ''subject'' of ELNO #14 is 'list of links' ''not'' 'manufacturers, suppliers or customers.' Of all the external links removed by Jojalozzo, only one (DMOZ) might qualify as a list of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers under that guideline. [[User:Scott.somohano|Scott.somohano]] ([[User talk:Scott.somohano|talk]]) 22:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
:: The external links section has always been a [[WP:COATRACK]] — I agree with being ruthless in keeping it clean, and there's few if any good, unbiased third-party sources that would qualify. -- [[User:SamJ|samj]] <small><sub
Here's one more potential source:
* [http://www.buyya.com/papers/SDCC-Keynote2014.pdf Software-Defined Cloud Computing: Architectural Elements and Open Challenges]
[[User:Jojalozzo|<
== Earlier ref ==
Line 871:
Since Oracle is mentioned in this article, would it be possible to also mention that [[SAP SE]] has a cloud-based solution in the form of [[SAP HANA]]? I think this would balance the article a bit more. In addition, SAP has formed a partnership with IBM to create a "hybrid cloud" for customers, as well as with Microsoft. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Harper70|Harper70]] ([[User talk:Harper70|talk]]) 18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Harper70
{{
:We should probably remove Oracle as well. Instead we could have a statement that most cloud computing platforms use open-source free software due to exorbitant charges for licensing and maintenance. When I searched for SAP cloud that was the first reference I came up with. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
::I think that [[Cloud computing]] should stick to the historically significant information. [[SAP HANA]] does not primarily seem to be a cloud offering, but [[HANA Enterprise Cloud]] seems to be the product. I would suggest that the SAP HANA article is boosted in content first. An then possibly a link from [[Software as a service]]. (Perhaps I am a bit harsh on the word "exorbitant", but the point is that software charges do not scale nicely in the cloud. Having to license each instantiation or run a license server is extra difficulty). [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 21:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Line 942:
[[User:Loftlon|Loftlon]] ([[User talk:Loftlon|talk]]) 23:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:{{done}} -- [[User:Dane2007|<b style="color:blue">Dane<span style="color:#F14D0B">2007</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Dane2007|<
== Balance sheet assets ==
Line 1,157:
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018 ==
Please change <br />
FROM <br />
Since 2000, cloud computing has come into existence. <br />
TO <br />
Since 2000 cloud computing has come into existence, because in the last days of 1999 a patent was filed for a "one page web" by Hardy Schloer, making it the first known Cloud computing implementation <ref>http://www.krishisanskriti.org/vol_image/04Jul201510072939%20%20%20Shivani%20Jain%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20127-132%20%20%202.pdf</ref>. The patent was put to use in England and Germany<ref>https://patents.justia.com/patent/20030140097</ref> and Mr. Schloer explained the technology as a “method and device for presenting data to a user" consisting of:
Line 1,229:
{{reflist-talk}}
== Clarity and neutrality ==
[[User:Daveburstein|Daveburstein]] ([[User talk:Daveburstein|talk]]) 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC) I rewrote the first few paragraphs to make them more understandable to a non-technical user. I also removed or reworked what I considered non-neutral. It would be good to do similar for the whole article. Dave
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Cloud computing|answered=yes}}
[[Special:Contributions/117.211.131.5|117.211.131.5]] ([[User talk:117.211.131.5|talk]]) 06:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> blank edit request. [[User:Roadguy2|Roadguy2]] ([[User talk:Roadguy2|talk]]) 13:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
== Edit History ==
Hello,
I am requesting to update the history section and add a paragraph about the BSCW system being the first system that you would call "cloud" today. It was developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology and published in 1995. There is a article about it on their page that can be found at https://www.fit.fraunhofer.de/en/fb/cscw/projects/bscw_20-Jahre.html.
It is also included at the german Cloud Computing Wikipedia page. I think it would be a good addition to the page. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:OrbiTeam|OrbiTeam]] ([[User talk:OrbiTeam#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrbiTeam|contribs]]) 09:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Characteristics ==
Hello,
the chapter "Characteristics" is in my opinion too single sided in favour of cloud providers.
There's no real con argument. Some examples: latency is in case of cloud computing higher than for "local" processing. Billing is unreproducible for the user as you have to trust your cloud provider that it does it correctly. Cloud servers are usually overcommitted meaning that worst case the cloud provider can't give your application more capacity as there's none. (DDoS-) Attacks on cloud providers threaten cloud users businesses as the "internal" team of cloud users can't do anything when they depend on a connection to the cloud provider.
--[[User:Leuchuk|Leuchuk]] ([[User talk:Leuchuk|talk]]) 07:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Leuchuk}} - Good point. It ''is'' rather one-sided. There are some of the negatives discussed in the [[Cloud_computing#Limitations_and_disadvantages|Limitations and disadvantages]] section, but they are not covered in any depth. If someone did have the time to find some reliable sources and add some critique of cloud computing, that could be a useful contribution to the article. (I don't see having the time myself, but maybe I will sometime in the future if no one else does it first.) - [[User:Dyork|Dyork]] ([[User talk:Dyork|talk]]) 16:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
== History: Removal of the previous mention to "NASA's OpenNebula" for lack of references, repaced by Nebula ==
Hello,
OpenNebula was listed as NASA's project, which seems to be wrong: the linked page, [[OpenNebula]], had nothing to do with NASA, but with a Spanish university spinoff ([[OpenNebula Systems]]).
There's no evidence of NASA having anything to do with OpenNebula, and there are no references to OpenNebula in the reference paper, "The RESERVOIR Model and Architecture for Open Federated Cloud Computing", which is publicly available at https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.330.3880&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Indeed, the right reference seems to be Nebula: https://www.nasa.gov/open/nebula.html <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Covelus|Covelus]] ([[User talk:Covelus#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Covelus|contribs]]) 17:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)</small>
== Assessment ==
There has been some discussion about this article's quality assessment at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Assessment_requests]]. The article is currently rated B-class. I don't think it has quite earned that yet. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
== recent edits ==
[[User:Kms89|Kms89]] ([[User talk:Kms89|talk]]) 03:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)I have made changes to the term cloud computing. I've gone into more detail about the benefits of cloud computing. I also went into more depth about the different types of cloud computing. I added the "Country Ranking in Cloud Computing" section. This section discusses BSA's country rankings in cloud computing growth capabilities. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kms89|Kms89]] ([[User talk:Kms89#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kms89|contribs]]) </span>
:You've been overwriting the lead section with an extremely close paraphrase of the IBM source. (See [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing]]) That is not an improvement. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 03:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
== cloud computing update ==
[[User:Kms89|Kms89]] ([[User talk:Kms89|talk]]) 17:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Kms89 I have made changes to the term cloud computing. I've gone into more detail about the benefits of cloud computing. I also went into more depth about the different types of cloud computing.
: {{reply|Kms89}} I've reverted these changes for several reasons:
:* your changes were unsourced (i.e. there is no [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to indicate that your definition or list of benefits are widely accepted)
:* your [[WP:TONE|tone]] was too informal.
: -- [[User:WikiDan61|<span style="color: green;">WikiDan61</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 17:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
== cloud computing update ==
[[User:Kms89|Kms89]] ([[User talk:Kms89|talk]]) 17:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Kms89 Added more detail about cloud computing benefits, different types of cloud computing, and added country ranking in cloud computing growth.
: Your second set of changes was not significantly different from your first. Before trying to introduced these changes again, please discuss the matter here. [[User:WikiDan61|<span style="color: green;">WikiDan61</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 12:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
== Crap article ==
I cannot read this crap because it disgusts my senses. [[Special:Contributions/62.165.157.33|62.165.157.33]] ([[User talk:62.165.157.33|talk]]) 06:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
== Ungrammatical and Uninterpretable Language, Incoherent Scope/Purpose, Full of Misinformation ==
Just as an example:
“By 2019, Linux was the most widely used operating system, including in Microsoft's offerings and is thus described as dominant.”
What does this even mean? Most widely used in what sense (there’s no context to clarify)? What does it mean for it to be described as dominant, and why does that matter (“described as xyz” especially when xyz is subjective, shouldn’t be used in a Wikipedia article unless describing a specific person’s option, identified as such).
I’m sure this article is full of this kind of thing; I mean, the fact that most cloud computing would have to be Linux-based by default and pretty much always has been is either obvious to the reader or requires a more detailed explanation, depending on their level of technological literacy. I can’t do so due to a currently hectic schedule but this article needs a major overhaul at least and probably a complete rewrite – not just because of quality issues, but also because it’s an increasingly mainstream topic that isn’t well understood by the average person and it should therefore be a high priority for Wikipedia to have a clear, accurate, accessible, and fully sourced article on the topic.
[[User:Andyharbor|Andyharbor]] ([[User talk:Andyharbor|talk]]) 21:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
:Stated above, "the fact that most cloud computing would have to be Linux-based by default and pretty much always has been is either obvious to the reader or requires a more detailed explanation, depending on their level of technological literacy." Setting aside for the moment your valid "huh?" about dominance &c, pretty much any statement about Linux would be unobvious to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. I do agree that the article is filled with jargon and [''insert your post title here''], and does not present cloud computing in a way that even an above-average person can understand. I am working on a project that involves cloud computing and when I finish it, I may try to at least clean up some of the language a bit. [[User:Denisecaruso|Denisecaruso]] ([[User talk:Denisecaruso|talk]]) 06:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
== Clearing up clutter in lead ==
I think the lead should just contain a definition of what cloud computing is, and maybe one or two facts related to that definition. I have decided to remove the following section because I think that '''a)''' it clutters up the lead far too much '''b)''' a lot of the facts presented would fit better in other sections, such as History.
{{quote|text=The availability of high-capacity networks, low-cost computers and storage devices as well as the widespread adoption of [[hardware virtualization]], [[service-oriented architecture]] and [[autonomic computing|autonomic]] and [[utility computing]] has led to growth in cloud computing.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2009-10-15|title=Cloud Computing: Clash of the clouds|work=The Economist|url=http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14637206|access-date=2009-11-03}}</ref><ref name="gartner">{{cite web|title=Gartner Says Cloud Computing Will Be As Influential As E-business|url=http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=707508|access-date=2010-08-22|publisher=Gartner}}</ref><ref name="really">{{cite web|last=Gruman|first=Galen|date=2008-04-07|title=What cloud computing really means|url=http://www.infoworld.com/d/cloud-computing/what-cloud-computing-really-means-031|access-date=2009-06-02|work=[[InfoWorld]]}}</ref> As of 2017, 90% of the public cloud runs a [[Linux distribution|Linux]]-based operating system.<ref name="Linux on Azure" /> Clouds may be limited to a single [[organization]] (enterprise or private clouds<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wang|s2cid=8251298|title=Enterprise cloud service architectures|journal=Information Technology and Management|volume=13|issue=4|pages=445–454|doi=10.1007/s10799-012-0139-4|year=2012}}</ref><ref name="aws.amazon">{{cite web|date=2013-03-19|title=What is Cloud Computing?|url=https://aws.amazon.com/what-is-cloud-computing/|access-date=2013-03-20|work=Amazon Web Services}}</ref>), or be available to multiple organizations (public cloud).}} [[User:Lankyliver|<span style="border:2px solid black;background-color: #ff7583">Lankyliver🧠</span>]] ([[User_talk:Lankyliver|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Lankyliver|contribs]]) 01:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Lankyliver}} the lead is now one short paragraph. How do you come by the assessment that a two-paragraph lead is cluttered? That content can certaily be moved to history but it is also acceptable to include a summary of it in the lead. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
:Deleting that paragraph threw out most of the baby with the bathwater, even if the baby was kind of covered in spit-up.
:The first three items in the first sentence, i.e., big fast networks, cheap computers and cheap storage, did not "lead to growth in cloud computing"; cloud computing could not have come to be without them. Nor was it the "widespread adoption" of hardware virtualization et al. that "led to growth ..." That may eventually have been true, but those technologies -- which enabled and were/are the primary characteristics of cloud computing -- had to be developed first. First we develop, then we adopt, then we grow.
:If it were written well, this information would provide a context and framework for the rest of what the article should cover.
:I agree wholeheartedly that the last two sentences should not be in the introductory paragraph, for so many reasons that I will not list them here. Thank you for removing them! [[User:Denisecaruso|Denisecaruso]] ([[User talk:Denisecaruso|talk]]) 06:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
==Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/College_of_DuPage/English_Composition_1102_(Spring) | assignments = [[User:InviseUser123|InviseUser123]] | start_date = 2024-01-23 | end_date = 2024-05-17 }}
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:DiceyDomino|DiceyDomino]] ([[User talk:DiceyDomino|talk]]) 05:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)</span>
| |||