I was tempted to answer "the age of Aquarius" :) ----------- Brian
Sent from my iPhone On 2011-03-31, at 11:39 PM, "Greg Sevart" <[email protected]> wrote: > Inclined to agree--that comment cracked me up. :) > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bryan Seitz >> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:12 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [H] $1000 / yr for 1TB of Cloud? >> >> haha I'd hang out w/ Duncan any time, he's got style and a sense of humor! >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:05:57PM -0400, DSinc wrote: >>> Anthony, >>> Thanks for your share. What age do you live in? >>> Best, >>> Duncan >>> >>> >>> On 03/31/2011 22:57, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: >>>> Are you serious? Move out of the dark ages or at least don't expect > the >> rest of the world to hand out there with you. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 10:38 PM, DSinc<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> OK. Please tell me how the Internet use is differently than back in >>>>> 1970? >>>>> Really curious now..... :) >>>>> Duncan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 03/31/2011 21:33, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: >>>>>> The way it is used. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:07 PM, DSinc<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anthony, >>>>>>> Fine. Agree. What set of technologies portend renaming Internet to >> Cloud? >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Duncan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 03/31/2011 20:30, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: >>>>>>>> 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?n >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ewsearch=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 > >
