Jump to content

Talk:Cloud computing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2602:306:38c1:64d0:11d4:68ed:c92b:5fbd (talk) at 06:14, 9 April 2016 (→‎Scientific Description of a Cloud: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remote Job Entry

During the mid 70s, time-sharing was popularly known as RJE (Remote Job Entry); this nomenclature was mostly associated with large vendors such as IBM and DEC.

This statement is incorrect. RJE was never referred to as time-sharing. Time-sharing was always an interactive experience involving a TTY terminal, a 2741 Selectric terminal, or something like that. In contrast, Remote Batch involved a large piece of hardware that was essentially a remote cardreader / printer device. They were called RJE terminals. I forget the IBM designation for them. Control Data also had them and I presume Univac and Burroughs did too. WithGLEE (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes RJE was not time-sharing. As for IBM's name for RJE, I remember IBM's Job Control Language having support for RJE jobs but Google cannot find anything about it. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azure

I was very surprised that Microsoft Azure was not mentioned in the history. I added a short mention of it. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of "Cloud"

The cloud goes back farther than this article suggests.

1985 source, book on ISDN: https://books.google.com/books?id=UYcoAQAAMAAJ&q=packet+switched+diagram+cloud&dq=packet+switched+diagram+cloud&hl=en&sa=X&ei=729TVej7HdTZsAT984C4DA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ Make extensive use and reference to clouds in network diagrams.

Here's a 1988 source on the subject: https://books.google.com/books?id=9M4SAQAAMAAJ&q=packet+diagram+cloud&dq=packet+diagram+cloud&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AWxTVfn8LuSOsQTJ04G4Dg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw "Packet switching networks are universally represented on network schematic diagrams as a cloud. Presumably, data enter the cloud at one end and find their way miraculously through the fog to their proper destination at the other end."

[hmm... looks like the date on this article might be wrong - Battling McGook (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Another 1988 source: https://books.google.com/books?id=MtNrAAAAIAAJ&q=packet+switched+network+cloud&dq=packet+switched+network+cloud&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cG5TVYGzH4O_sQT4poCwBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA "When a packet enters the network 'cloud' from an end-point device, it must be routed to the destination end-point device by the packet switches forming the network."

And from 1989: https://books.google.com/books?id=2GpPAAAAMAAJ&q=packet+switched+network+cloud&dq=packet+switched+network+cloud&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cG5TVYGzH4O_sQT4poCwBw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA "Packet-switching Packet-Switched Data Networks (PSDN) are usually represented as a cloud with the legend X.25 inscribed on it, implying that it doesn 't matter what goes on inside the network as long as the data arrives."

To summarize, the cloud was useful in diagramming end-to-end communications in a very large network, where you really didn't care what was happening in the very complicated middle part of the diagram/ Otherwise network diagrams of complex networks would have to needlessly show a vast number of internal links that were utterly beside the point when discussing end-to-end communications.

This is also why the "cluster of servers" notion that the article talks about is completely ridiculous. First, the use of clouds to represent large sections of networks predates the modern version of the Internet. These early networks were unlikely to even have clusters of servers. Further, it's obvious that the cloud represents a broad chunk of network, while any cluster of servers would have been one single spot on a network diagram.

The reason the "Cloud" became synonymous with the Internet was because the Internet is one big giant packet-switched network. And the very idea of putting things in "the cloud" so you don't have to worry about them comes directly from this original usage of the cloud to represent a bunch of stuff out there who's function you didn't have to worry about.

The sources are clear, and that part needs to be updated. My opinions on how this turned into the modern usage of "Cloud" are my own, and unless and until someone says it out in the real world, you can't really put it in the article, but hopefully you can at least see how obvious it is that this is the real origin. Battling McGook (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the 1950s section

I have BIG BIG problems with the section on the 1950s, and I plan to remove it completely.

In the 1950s, there was only one model of computing. There was no network and no cloud. People used big centralized mainframes for their computing because that was the only model in existence. Dumb terminals were just "terminals", because there were no smart terminals. There were no servers, and hence no clients, let alone no thin clients. Thin clients are actual computers that rely on network store. Dumb terminals are simply interfaces into a mainframe. The concept of time sharing was basically the polar opposite of cloud computing. Time-sharing arose because there was more demand than there was computing time. Cloud computing arose (in part) because there was excess computing time being wasted.

This entire section is basically a fractured fairy tale that never happened.

I'll let this comment sit for a week or so before taking action. Battling McGook (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balance sheet assets

The following sentence is a nonsense:

The term "moving to cloud" also refers to an organization moving away from a traditional CAPEX model (buy the dedicated hardware and depreciate it over a period of time) to the OPEX model (use a shared cloud infrastructure and pay as one uses it).

The way of financing computer equipment like anything else is down to a financial decision. A company may own a fleet of lorries, or they can lease them, or they can rent them, or they can contract out the work to other haulage companies. Typically a operator will often employ all four models simultaneously and modify it depending of the most efficient mix. It is no different with computer equipment and services. So "moving to the cloud" has nothing to do with CAPEX of OPEX models, it is merely a metaphor for a type of computer infrastructure that may or may not be an asset on the balance sheet.

-- PBS (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a source used in the article which could be used to support the sentence:

but it fails the MRDA, and is not written by someone who is qualified to asses the different way a corporation can finance their computer infrastructure. -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding line about SAP's cloud offering

Since Oracle is mentioned in this article, would it be possible to also mention that SAP SE has a cloud-based solution in the form of SAP HANA? I think this would balance the article a bit more. In addition, SAP has formed a partnership with IBM to create a "hybrid cloud" for customers, as well as with Microsoft. Thank you for your consideration. Harper70 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Harper70[reply]

We should probably remove Oracle as well. Instead we could have a statement that most cloud computing platforms use open-source free software due to exorbitant charges for licensing and maintenance. When I searched for SAP cloud that was the first reference I came up with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Cloud computing should stick to the historically significant information. SAP HANA does not primarily seem to be a cloud offering, but HANA Enterprise Cloud seems to be the product. I would suggest that the SAP HANA article is boosted in content first. An then possibly a link from Software as a service. (Perhaps I am a bit harsh on the word "exorbitant", but the point is that software charges do not scale nicely in the cloud. Having to license each instantiation or run a license server is extra difficulty). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graeme!! That's an excellent suggestion. I'm now in the process of compiling information and citations for the SAP HANA article, and once that's been done, we can continue the conversation. Many thanks! Harper70 (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Harper70[reply]

Scientific Description of a Cloud

The sentence "The word "cloud" is commonly used in science to describe a large agglomeration of objects that visually appear from a distance as a cloud and describes any set of things whose details are not further inspected in a given context." basically just says "The word "cloud" is commonly used in science to describe an object that looks like a cloud." I've got no idea what the second part means. "[W]hose details are not further inspected in a given context." What? What context? I wish I could see the source for it (the [14] one) to see what, exactly, is being sourced there because, man, I gotta say that is one challenging sentence. And by challenging I mean trash.