This article's topic deserves fuller attention. Merging it into a bigger Google article would likely not serve that purpose. I would recommend against merging or deleting this article. If I get time I'll see what I can do about getting a little more content in here. KellyCoinGuy (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just let it go.. Following the Rajpaj trail courtesy of bobrayner is a exercise in futility. Google Storage is a legit service; merging it into 'Google' doesn't make sense. If you were to nominate it for Google Code's page, that would be a better move.--Rajpaj (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
..because it's nominator is a follower of a user that is on a crusade to smear this person. Speedily deleting this makes zero sense, as it is a real product released 12 months ago to compete on the cloud front against Amazon EC2. Surely, you understand this. Being in beta doesn't make it any less of a usable product; I merely requested that the GS team share more functionality. If you get an invite, you'll see what I mean.
GStorage is literally a re-write of S3 with Amazon APIs replaced by Google APIs. It's safe to assume that key authenticity is a specific to Google account holders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpaj (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Degree of compatibility with S3
Google Cloud Storage uses OAuth for authentication and does not support the authentication mechanism used by S3. In practice that means no software written to S3 APIs will directly run against Google Cloud Storage (even if it uses the subset of requests they both support), unless significant modifications are made to support OAuth.
However, although this is obvious to anyone who reads the docs for both systems, I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source for the incompatibility in authentication mechanisms. (I can find plenty of references that incorrectly say that they are compatible without qualification.) Anyone? --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
https://developers.google.com/storage/docs/reference/v1/apiversion1 supports HMAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like the right thing to do is remove the dubious statement altogether. It's not referenced (and can't be, since it isn't true), so it should be stricken. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)