Talk:Cloud computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

And mine, also[edit]

The article seems reasonable to me. The criticism that it's "too technical" is nothing short of inane. Firstly, the material is mustneeds of a technical nature; secondly, far more technical articles appear all over the place yet are seldom criticized. I would point out that the author's command of various aspects of the technology is rather superficial, but I digress. 50.128.184.140 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2013

Reference to Larry Ellson[edit]

Regarding the following the comment in the article: Critical voices including GNU project initiator Richard Stallman and Oracle founder Larry Ellison warned that the whole concept is rife with privacy and ownership concerns and constitute merely a fad.[94]

... and assuming this is The Guardian article that's referenced at [94]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman

I have a question: Why is Larry Ellison referenced in the Wikipedia article when he's never referred to in The Guardian article?

Suggest removing his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitterspray (talkcontribs) 19:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it too technical? No, but I have a suggestion[edit]

It was clear enough to me, a non-techie, once I got past "virtual servers". But it wouldn't hurt to have a sort of dictionary type entry for those, like me, who've heard the term without knowing specifically what it meant. Usually I wait until context eventually makes it obvious, but context wasn't doing it so I searched here. A brief, simplistic definition at the beginning may be all some users need, and may help make the article more clear right away for those who want more info. My suggestion would be: Use of software and applications from the Internet rather than being installed and run on an individual PC, including services such as data backup on the Internet rather than on a PC hard drive. It leaves out a lot but may give a ground level idea of what's being referred to when the term 'cloud computing' is used. It would have allowed me to know right away what 'virtual servers' (for example) referred to.

Seems like it's new term for a computing concept and practice that's been around well over a decade. I recall the 'Inet machines', which were inexpensive small laptops ($300 when even basic laptops cost $2000) that had little or no hard drives and only an operating system and a browser. And lots of us worked in companies with a hardwire intranet where all the software was run from the company servers. May still be the case, but I'm retired and not up on these things. ````Joyce Cleveland Mar 25, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.50.61 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's an old girl tarted up to look like a peach. "Thin clients", diskless workstations that relied on central computing cores and storage were displaced by the cheap and powerful desktop workstations that became available in the 2000's, and now we're seeing the same old players trying to sell their failed architecture wrapped up in new buzzwords... And at a time when desktop computers are smaller, less expensive, and more powerful than ever. The real intent can be seen when one "follows the money"... Direct corporate control of access to content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.311 (talkcontribs) 22:53, 31 March 2014‎ (UTC)
(Not authored by previous paragraph writer) So again, my two cents: 'Cloud computing' covers a lot of ground and frequently means different things to different people. This article might benefit from serving as a overview or disambiguation article, with new individual article covering specific sub-areas of 'cloud computing.' Broadly, four areas leap to mind: Data storage, application usage, networking, and data management. They might roughly map to IAAS, SAAS and PAAS but I'll leave that for true Wikipedians to decide. :-) Thanks again. Scott.somohano (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links[edit]

I have moved the following from the EL section. These might make good sources for article content but there's no need to have them in the EL section:

Jojalozzo 02:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Only my two cents, but I would not say all of these links have the same level of value. Some are very broad, other very specific, and some tangential. For example, the NIST papers seem appropriate, whereas the Ed Snowden item is tangential at best. The others are in between. The specific link I added a year ago (on Microsoft TechNet) is the broadest page I could link to about Microsoft's technical content for cloud (not marketing content). Hence, I considered it useful & not gratuitous. Thanks. Scott.somohano (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Use them as sources but they don't qualify as external links. Jojalozzo 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That's the thing. Some of them can and do qualify under item #3 of WP:ELYES:
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
NIST is a standards agency. Microsoft is a long-time industry leader in enterprise networking. Those sources provide tons of depth that cannot be included in any single article. Treating them as external links is a reasonable approach. Thanks again. Scott.somohano (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
TechNet provides information and services that is specific to the Microsoft product range and hence the content is only relevant insofar as it is platform specific. Also broadly construed, it can be seen as a violation of ELNO #14 "manufacturers, suppliers or customers" - i.e. service providers or commercially oriented entities. -SFK2 (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
ELNO #14 is also not applicable. It states "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." My link to Cloud Hub on TechNet is not that & neither are the two NIST links. I will not contest this further, but I do find it interesting that a link that qualifies under item #3 on WP:ELYES is denied under at least three rules that are shown to be not applicable. Thanks again for your time and consideration.Scott.somohano (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think 'manufacturers, suppliers or customers' can be reasonably interpreted to include commercial entities that deliver the related product/service. Would you agree? -SFK2 (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but you're citing only part of ELNO #14 out of its context. The subject of ELNO #14 is 'list of links' not 'manufacturers, suppliers or customers.' Of all the external links removed by Jojalozzo, only one (DMOZ) might qualify as a list of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers under that guideline. Scott.somohano (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The external links section has always been a WP:COATRACK — I agree with being ruthless in keeping it clean, and there's few if any good, unbiased third-party sources that would qualify. -- samj inout 08:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think paragraph 3 should be moved to be the opening paragraph[edit]

The 3rd paragraph IMHO defines what most people think of as "Cloud Computing" and as more SaaS (and PaaS, etc.) happens this will increase. Starting out with a paragraph about distributed computing is too esoteric for what most people are doing. If I can figure out how to edit this topic I will make that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.226.228 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Provide Context[edit]

In my role as IT Director, I always find it difficult to introduce the idea of moving IT departments and services to the cloud without first providing a context as to why. Why should we spend the time, manpower, dollars to embrace this possibly "over-hyped" technology. I always start off by describing the problem we are trying to address, then delve into the solution. This is basic PM presentation 101.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeFromOlney (talkcontribs) 18:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Questioning whether Cloud is an appropriate separate term[edit]

Although cloud computing is clearly used in modern-day language, the use of the term is arguably a marketing phrase. With some co-authors, we've written about some of the history on that and have made a case that cloud computing is, essentially, any two-way interaction on the Internet (in particular, it's the same as web-based email, blogging tools, etc). This view differs from much of what is written in this Wikipedia article, but that doesn't mean that the view is wrong. I had added a couple lines in the article and cited our piece that covers this in an article published in 2012 in the Computer Law & Security Review (the article is on SSRN, here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2295216). I've run into quite a bit of resistance from some of the great editors and curators of the page in including this, with a view that it's self promotion and also that we're not experts. I respect those opinions, but I disagree that the topic is irrelevant for cloud computing.

My question, for discussion: what is the best way to advance some of this in the context of the Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudewhereismybike (talkcontribs) 00:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

With 150,000 Google Scholar hits I'd suggest that cloud computing is a lot more than a "marketing phrase" (even if it is routinely abused by vendors). -- samj inout 08:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Getting the definition in the introduction section right[edit]

I removed the new definition added by Science.Warrior and put mine back in as the first definition. Besides fixing the grammar in the introductory section, the newer simpler definition proposed was not accurate without including the role of virtualization. It would be the equivalent of describing a car and not mentioning that it has an engine until a later section. I disagree that this makes it too complicated the way it is written, because readers can jump to the virtualization article if they so wish. Also, the definition put in its place unnecessarily oversimplified the concept of cloud. It equates the cloud with any computer network - Internet, intranet, LAN or WAN, without mentioning the critical role of virtual servers.Timtempleton (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The majority of the lede now rambles about virtualisation, and yet the technology is absolutely optional and is used sparingly, if at all, in delivery of many/most cloud computing services. The Google platform, for example, runs on bare metal (even if they also offer GCE, which is negligible in comparison with the rest of their footprint). Sure it's relevant to cloud infrastructure, but not to the general concept of cloud. -- samj inout 07:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate how everyone wants to get this right. Nobody wants to be a contributor to an article that is held up by the critics as an example of poor educational quality. However, are not Google's cloud storage "buckets" themselves a form of virtual storage, and therefore part of the virtualization discussion? Amazon's S3 storage units are also derived from virtual buckets. If you feel the intro rambles, it may be because of the attempt to clarify the term for laymen. Please feel free to modify it to better suit your preferred style of writing.Timtempleton (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in addition to hardware (cores), we also virtualise storage, memory, networks, etc. — this is not in any way unique to cloud computing though. A lot of people assume that cloud is somehow equivalent to, or dependent on, hardware virtualisation. That's just not the case — sure most infrastructure services use it to divide physical machines between multiple customers, but we're increasingly seeing "bare metal" services offering direct access to the underlying hardware, so it's optional there too. -- samj inout 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge from cloud computing architecture[edit]

This article appears to be largely repetitive with the main cloud computing article, and most of its content arguably belongs here. -- samj inout 07:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)