Talk:Cloud computing/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:08, 19 February 2015

Revision as of 05:26, 28 February 2015

Line 723:

: 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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJ|out]]</font>}</small> 08:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

== Getting the definition in the introduction section right ==

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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJ|out]]</font>}</small> 07:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

::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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJ|out]]</font>}</small> 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

== Inappropriate external links ==

I have moved the following from the EL section. These might make good sources for article content but there's no need to have them in the EL section:

* [http://www.buyya.com/papers/Cloud-FGCS2009.pdf Cloud Computing and Emerging IT Platforms: Vision, Hype, and Reality for Delivering Computing as the 5th Utility]. Rajkumar Buyya, Chee Shin Yeo, Srikumar Venugopal, James Broberg, and Ivona Brandic. Future Generation Computer Systems, Volume 25, Number 6, Pages: 599-616, ISSN: 0167-739X, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 2009.

* [http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing]. Peter Mell and Timothy Grance, NIST Special Publication 800-145 (September 2011). National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

* [http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp/2011/sp800-144.pdf Guidelines on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud Computing]. Wayne Jansen and Timothy Grance, NIST Special Publication 800-144 (December 2011). National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

* [http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/risk-management/files/deliverables/cloud-computing-risk-assessment Cloud Computing – Benefits, risks and recommendation for information security]. Daniele Cattedu and Giles Hobben, European Network and Information Security Agency 2009.

* [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=79050 Fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud. European Parliament – Directorate-General for Internal Policies. 2012]

*[http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo32975 Cloud Computing: What are the Security Implications?: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, October 6, 2011]

* [https://www.google.com/patents/US20130060657?dq=ininventor:%22Benjamin+Franklin+Clay%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EJnsUYGCLJHg8ASquoCIAw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA PCI Compliant E-Commerce In The Cloud] Hosting E-Commerce Based on Cloud Computing

* [http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud/private-cloud Cloud and Datacenter Solution Hub] on Microsoft TechNet

* [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]

<font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 02:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

: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. <font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

::: 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.''

:::NIST is a standards agency. Microsoft is a long-time industry leader in enterprise networking. Those sources provide tons of depth that cannot be included in any single article. Treating them as external links is a reasonable approach. Thanks again. [[User:Scott.somohano|Scott.somohano]] ([[User talk:Scott.somohano|talk]]) 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

::::TechNet provides information and services that is specific to the Microsoft product range and hence the content is only relevant insofar as it is platform specific. Also broadly construed, it can be seen as a violation of ELNO #14 "manufacturers, suppliers or customers" - i.e. service providers or commercially oriented entities. -[[User:SFK2|SFK2]] ([[User talk:SFK2|talk]]) 05:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

::::: ELNO #14 is also not applicable. It states "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." My link to Cloud Hub on TechNet is not that & neither are the two NIST links. I will not contest this further, but I do find it interesting that a link that qualifies under item #3 on [[WP:ELYES]] is denied under at least three rules that are shown to be not applicable. Thanks again for your time and consideration.[[User:Scott.somohano|Scott.somohano]] ([[User talk:Scott.somohano|talk]]) 02:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::: 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>_{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:Samj|in]]</font>}^{<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SamJ|out]]</font>}</small> 08:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one more potential source:

* [http://www.buyya.com/papers/SDCC-Keynote2014.pdf Software-Defined Cloud Computing: Architectural Elements and Open Challenges]

<font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 23:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)