Talk:Cloud computing/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:21, 14 December 2009

Revision as of 02:27, 29 December 2009

Line 1,468:

:: 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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font>}</small></u> 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

== 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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font>}</small></u> 12:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

:: 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-->

:'''Thank you.''' [[User:842U|842U]] ([[User talk:842U|talk]]) 21:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

: Agree, this reads like nonsense corporate jargon sprinkled with unexplained abstraction. No way a layman could get any use out of the article. [[Special:Contributions/64.148.241.133|64.148.241.133]] ([[User talk:64.148.241.133|talk]]) 07:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The article about [[IQ]] clearly states that 50% of population has 2 digit IQ and will have similar difficulties with all articles not written in [[simple english]] so not-getting-it on the "normal english" Wikipedia is not an issue. --[[User:B-D|B-D]] ([[User talk:B-D|talk]]) 11:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

:::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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font>}</small></u> 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

== Over-centralisation is evil ==

Here, the power lies again in the hands of few... People are stupid enough to choose to be too lazy to cognatively grasp the tools that they use. In the end it is not just understanding but free will that we will lose.

[[Special:Contributions/155.42.123.70|155.42.123.70]] ([[User talk:155.42.123.70|talk]]) 15:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. I am a very smart person and this article makes no sense to me whatsoever. I have no clue what the first paragraph means, and having read the responses above, apparently the first paragraph is completely false as well as meaningless.

I disagree that stupid or lazy people using tools built by smart people leads to the loss of free will. How many people understand how a cell phone or a light switch works? But did either the cell phone or electricity lead to a loss of free will? No. (Whether the development of triangulation systems for 911 calls from cell phones leads to the growth of Big Brother is another issue. OnStar is now bragging that they can turn your car off remotely.) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.248.147.128|96.248.147.128]] ([[User talk:96.248.147.128|talk]]) 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font>}</small></u> 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

:::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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]]</font>}</small></u> 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::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)

== Irony ==

"Private cloud and internal cloud are neologisms" What article is this again? oh. Right. --[[Special:Contributions/96.241.225.160|96.241.225.160]] ([[User talk:96.241.225.160|talk]]) 20:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)