On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Tim Bass <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't agree with you that simply putting resources in S3 is better > than having an AMI as Grant suggests. It is not "either or" but > "both". Fair point. > It would be much easier for people if they could simply log into their > Amazon account (I have one) and turn on a Mahout AMI, and just > configure it. But what if you don't want Ubuntu (or do)? I would think it just as handy to have a script that I should shove into any AMI that I happen to run to turn it into a Mahout capable machine. You are talking about "Hosting files as a service", which is a great idea > too. Hmm... I would think of it more along the lines of hosting free software in binary form. > However, the SaaS and CaaS model for analytics is well established now > and this is a perfect model for Mahout in EC2. And that is not what either of us really proposed. For that, a higher level service is appropriate and a more appropriate interface. AMI's and files are things, not particularly a service. The category error is tempting, but I think misleading.
