The tech behind the "cloud". Saying it's a marketing term is besides the point. And its not just a marketing term, either, as it refers to a set of technologies that accomplishes a certain thing. It not just the internet, either. The term was in use well before people started trying to push it as they are now. Why the big deal over this simple term? It's not as if any of us get to decide what terms get used.
Sent from my iPad On Mar 31, 2011, at 8:20 PM, DSinc <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>
