Talk:Cloud computing

Bad definition

The article begins with "Cloud computing is the use of computing resources (hardware and software) that are delivered as a service over a network (typically the Internet)." It seems that this definition would include quite much every network service ever made. Maybe it could say something like "distributed in a network", unless an official definition can be found somewhere? --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

European fear of supervision by US (NSA)

There is a discussion about this, e.g., in Slate Magazine: [1]. What I added to external links should be expanded by someone who knows more about the subject: Fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud. European Parliament - Directorate-General for Internal Policies. 2012. Zingophalitis (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be

It looks like cloud computing "appears to be" derived from the act of drawing clouds to concisely represent entire networks, like CISCO does. However, even though I think this is probably true, we need some definitive sources before we can call this speculation "not original research". --Carrot Lord (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Limitations on list of cloud services

Is there value in listing every reliably sourced cloud service in the introduction on this page? If so, should we require sources for new additions? Jojalozzo 22:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• No and Yes - I think the "Kitchen sink as a service (KSaaS)" meme is losing strength and as more and more refined niche services are offered, the colliding "aaS" acronyms become less and less meaningful. I propose we shorten the "aaS" list back to the standard five or six layer stack and list some examples of the varieties of services that use that architecture without the "as as service" suffixes or "aaS" acronyms. However, if we want to allow the list to grow let's set some limits and require every entry have a reliable secondary source. At the very least if we are going to let the list grow, we should move it out of the introduction. Jojalozzo 22:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• No - The whole .aaS thing is semantic gobbledygook that should be removed with extreme prejudice. The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• No' This list needs to be verifiable. It should be trimmed back to what's mentioned in citation [1]. If the list wants to be larger, someone needs to find a better citation. -—Kvng 14:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• No Agreement with Kvng SimonBramfitt (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• NoMake a new section in the article ―Rosscoolguy 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• No Only the first paragraph should be in the lede. On the assumption that the rest of the (current) lede is adequately verified by its citation, I don't much mind the rest of the lede, but only if the first para is followed by a suitable section heading such as "Overview" or "Introduction". If there were not an RFC in progress, I would immediately have inserted one myself. Of course, FAIK the rest of the text needs a lot of work, but that is another matter. Without going into the matter personally however, I cannot accept the "gobbledygook-deletion-with-extreme-prejudice" without prejudice; IMO one needs a bit more precise and explicit justification for such action. As I am not closely concerned with CC myself, I am not willing to undertake such evaluations and actions myself, but I would like to see a more substantial rationale from anyone urging such measures. JonRichfield (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• No to a list or section, but if a company contributed substantially to the concept, then their inclusion may be appropriate in the corresponding section. Say, for example, they are considered to be the first use of cloud computing or the first commercially successful one... CorporateM (Talk) 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I assume you're talking about the list in the lead. Yes? -—Kvng 14:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I added a clarifying phrase. Thanks . Jojalozzo 18:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Create new article for the list. I suggest creating an article along the lines of List of cloud computing services. Andrew³²⁷ 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You're free to create that separate list and that would be a good solution if we were discussing a large list in the body of the article. But, I don't think this has much bearing on the question of what should be listed in the lead. -—Kvng 18:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Block storage

I came to the article and started to try to understand it from the diagram at the top. The diagram mentions "block storage". I don't know what that means or why it's different from uploading my files. So the article needs to at least have a link to explain what the diagram means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.61.161 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Executive Summary??

It seems that a few days ago, someone added an "Executive Summary" to the head of the article with the note "Response to Wikipedia Admin request for a more general description targeted at a non-technical audience" without discussion here. Barring that I've never seen something like this in any other Wikipedia article before, it just seems to turn the introduction into a total mess. Does this follow Wikipedia's standards for article composition?

Furthermore, shouldn't such a simplification be reserved for the Simple English Wikipedia? I have seen much more technical rhetoric on other Wikipedia articles, and the original introductory paragraph does not seem too difficult to understand in the first place. I vote for reversion.

–– amanisdude (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The more I read it, the more it became clear that the style and form of the "Executive Summary" paragraph does not conform to main English Wikipedia standards, so I've gone ahead and reverted it. Here is the original paragraph in case anyone wants to add a modified version of it to the Simple English article:

Executive Summary (for the non-technical person): Cloud computing is the concept of using someone else's computer equipment instead of your own. It allows a person or a business to forget about technical details like whether a hard drive is big enough and puts that concern on another party. Sometimes those third parties charge for the use of the equipment or computer programs, which they are making available for you to use. Other times, the service is available as a public service; for example, Apple Inc. does not charge for the use of the iCloud for basic services. The iCloud saves your music and documents and other files and it does not use any space on your personal computer or mobile device. Those hard drives that store your information in the iCloud are maintained entirely by the Apple Corporation, and they have a guarantee of reasonable use with minimal interruption of service. One advantage of using the Apple iCloud is that because it is not your hard drive, and because all of your Apple devices are linked to the same cloud device, you as an end-user are able to access your files from all devices at any time. This advantage is a benefit of using someone else's hard drive across a computer network, which is the purpose of the cloud, and not the primary definition of what a cloud is or does. (Some people think that the Cloud's purpose is to allow a common access to data across multiple devices; this is actually a secondary advantage.) Another example of a cloud based system that is available for no charge is the free version of Ubuntu One, which allows up to 5 GB of storage space to any user. Ubuntu One is targeted to a Linux user as opposed to a Macintosh or PC user. For more technical and more accurate information, please continue reading the remainder of the article below.

–– amanisdude (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)