Bryan, no one is saying (at least on this list) that cloud-based services are the end-all and be-all. Like anything else, they have certain advantages and disadvantages that need to be taken into consideration when designing a solution to a given problem. There are certainly times when it makes sense not to use the cloud for a particular solution. But there are also times when it does make sense to do so.
My only complaint is people that outright dismiss something (whether it's cloud-based services, Intel CPUs, AMD CPUs, Macs, PCs, Linux, Windows, thin clients, Android, iPhone, or whatever) based on ideological basis, personal dislike, or bias. And like you I also very much dislike the outlandish claims made by certain advocates, fanboys, or marketing types for any of these things. But we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Me, I use a mix of AMD, Intel, Mac, PC, Windows, Linux, home server, and cloud-based solutions to solve my particular needs. What ever is best for a particular application. --- Brian On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Bryan Seitz <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok you win, cloud cloud cloud cloud cloud yay. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:04:46PM -0400, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: > > Bryan, > > > > I'm surprised at you. You're attempting to bully people into using YOUR > > preferred terminology. But saying that use of terminology is not in > > practice by those who are technical is total nonsense. Just look at all > > these research papers that use the term "cloud storage". > > > > > http://xplorebcpaz.ieee.org/search/freesearchresult.jsp?newsearch=true&queryText=cloud+storage&x=0&y=0 > > > > On 3/31/2011 4:31 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: > > > 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 >
