I did not mean it as an attack, I was just saying this is a technical list and we all believe we are technical, so no reason to perpatuate bad nomenclature.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 04:00:44PM -0400, Brian Weeden wrote: > Thanks for the personal attack. It really lends credibility to your > argument. > > --- > Brian > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Bryan Seitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Good point but but on a technical list (And I assume you think you are > > technical), > > I would expect the buzzwords to be less frequent. Even if your data is on > > a server or > > a bunch of servers it could just as easily be called remote/online backup. > > The term Cloud > > is purely marketing bullshit at this poing. Products that have been around > > for ages started > > calling themselves cloud even though nothing had changed. > > > > Ps. Actually Amazon is not scattered that much, usually local to a single > > datacenter and lucky > > if you have 3 copies, I worked there :) > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:59:52PM -0400, Brian Weeden wrote: > > > 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. > > > > -- > > > > Bryan G. Seitz > > -- Bryan G. Seitz
