Template talk:Cloud computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

LogicWorks : notability?[edit]

Noneil277 has been adding LogicWorks to this template, I've been reverting them. It's been going on long enough that someone else should review the situation. My issues with LogicWorks are

  • Notability? Is it significant enough? Is it unique enough? We can't have a list of everyone here, so unless it is unique or very successful (hey, we don't have IBM's offering yet), I don't think it should go in.
  • Quality of the LogicWorks article. It's written like an advert and much of the text appears to be a cut and paste job.
  • Where is their API? The only discussion there is on API is that they host VMWare's infrastructure platform -but in that case, there's no uniqueness at all

Comments from others welcome, including Noneil77. SteveLoughran (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

206.252.134.18 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)SteveLoughran thanks for the feedback regarding Logicworks. We are not using VMware infrastructure for our public cloud platform but rather CloudStack 2.2. The full API documentation is here http://cloud.com/kb/cloudstack-22-documentation and on our website. We are the only CloudStack infrastructure provider at this time running the latest release and to further expand on that capability the only provider of a public cloud which can hybrid multiple connections both virtual and bare metal into the same dedicated Vlan. Currently we are also working with Rightscale providing autoscalling solutions to our infiniCloud (CloudStack) and its uniqueness with the push button serve and hybrid dedicated VLAN availability provide us with some winning attributes. We've added the capability of multiple networks within a virtual machine of our cloud. Another unique feature is our award wining managed services which provides many clients with help beyond the infrastructure but includes application uptime service level agreements. While the QOS of our Logicworks company profile page is in the process of an update we have been working close with our marketing and engineering team to refresh and get the information in place. If you have any concerns or doubts of our cloud we could set you up with a free account for testing purposes . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.134.18 (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but are you notable enough to merit a mention on the template? You are certainly worthy of mentioning on the List of cloud computing providers, but I don't think you should go in this template. If we weren't ruthless, this template would be the same size as that list. It is not meant to be a complete list, more an example. SteveLoughran (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Logicworks was deleted. -- samj inout 20:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding cloud database under technologies[edit]

I've written a new entry about Cloud database and I think it fits under the technologies section in this template. What do you think? Anne.naimoli (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, adding Cloud database under technologies. Anne.naimoli (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

clean up[edit]

I think it would be better to separate service providers from technologies. --Kozka (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Small number[edit]

The docs say this "should have a small number (5–10) of the best available examples of each layer. This results in having the major players being listed in the transcluded template, with lesser competitors receiving more prominence in articles' "See also" or "Competitors" sections. It's better to have just one list that is maintained centrally. If that means having forty names in the list, it isn't a great problem. Ideally the Cloud computing comparison article would do the job, but right now it is so incomplete that it's almost useless. - Pointillist (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)