The reason to use "cloud": is to convey that it is a service that isn't tied to a specific machine or set of machines. Even if you use "online server storage" that still infers that a specific computer or cluster of computers somewhere has the data. And if that computer dies, the data is gone.
The whole point with a cloud-based system is to separate the service (processing power, data storage, whatever) from the hardware. Gmail is a cloud-based service, and as a user you have no clue where the data is physically stored, where the processing is done, or how it gets to you And in the case of a true cloud (like Google, Amazon, Rackspace, etc) the data is likely scattered everywhere, across multiple backbones/grids/continents. --- Brian On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Anthony Q. Martin <[email protected]>wrote: > ....nothing wrong with a buzzword...people have been using them for years. > People in scientific circles talk about "cloud storage" all the time. > > > On 3/31/2011 12:08 PM, Joshua MacCraw wrote: > >> Works great till you tell them their internet access is through the cloud. >> Then they think it the same term and it's not. Should simply BR called >> remote storage and it's been done for years without a stupid buzzword. >> On Mar 31, 2011 8:16 AM, "Anthony Q. Martin"<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Nothing wrong with the word cloud. Lay people don't speak server. >>> >>> On 3/31/2011 11:05 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: >>> >>>> The word cloud is retarded, let's just call it on a server via the >>>> >>> internet, thanks. >> >>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:51:30AM -0400, Brian Weeden wrote: >>>> >>>>> And if you have a fire in your home? >>>>> >>>>> The whole point of a proper cloud system for backup is that your data >>>>> is >>>>> synced locally AND in the cloud. That prevents complete loss in the >>>>> case >>>>> >>>> of >> >>> a failure in your house and also allows you to access the data without >>>>> >>>> an >> >>> internet connection. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:57 PM, DSinc<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thane, >>>>>> I remain with you. Me and my NAS, and, multiple flash drives will >>>>>> truck >>>>>> >>>>> on. >> >>> Best, >>>>>> Duncan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/30/2011 20:13, Thane Sherrington wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> At 06:13 PM 30/03/2011, Bino Gopal wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Really? Excepy for the lack of decent upload speeds-have you tried >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> uploading 5GB all at once to share something with a friend...not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> until 10+ >> >>> Mbps is the easily accessible standard will we see the end of USB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> flash >> >>> drives methinks! :P >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Plus the whole security issue. And the fact that internet >>>>>>> connections >>>>>>> >>>>>> go >> >>> down or don't exist in some places. I think I'll keep my flash drive >>>>>>> >>>>>> for a >> >>> bit longer. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
