Anthony,
What "tech?" CLOUD is a marketing name. The INTERNET is already a
reality. OK. Don't like the term "Internet". Fine. Let's rename it "Cloud."
Fine.
Best,
Duncan
On 03/31/2011 20:10, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
Why is there even a question of credibility? We all understand what is being
referred to....a name hardly seems like a big deal.
But yes, if the people who conceive of the tech don't have problems with that
term, why should anyone else?
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 31, 2011, at 7:59 PM, DSinc<[email protected]> wrote:
Anthony,
Fine. So just because other "technical" people use the term, it gains
credibility?
"Cloud" is a concept at best. Yes, it is available to those willing to be
research
test subjects. No harm, no foul.
I quit. "Cloud" is a server farm to me.
Best,
Duncan
On 03/31/2011 19:51, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
This point is that technical people, though who actually design and test this
stuff, use the term. Further, the term is in wide use already.....just look
around. Who cares if it is hardware or not.
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 31, 2011, at 7:46 PM, DSinc<[email protected]> wrote:
Anthony,
Just because "research papers" use the new terminology "cloud storage" does
not, to me, make "Cloud Storage" a real, main-stream term.
When the end of "research" outputs a "product" I may use this new term.
For now, we are all arguing about interesting planetary server farms.
Sorry, I cook wieners at Bryan's camp fire this time. Ultimately your "Cloud"
theory
remains hardware based. Unless I have missed something, software can
never perform any promised benefit without agreed upon hardware, connection
to the Internet, and, appropriate security protocols.
Should you lean Software, fine.
I lean Hardware.
Best,
Duncan
On 03/31/2011 19:21, Bryan Seitz 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
