Talk:Cloud computing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Heavy focus on SaaS

Cloud computing is split into three categories: SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS. The article focuses heavily on SaaS, with some parts of the overview only true of SaaS, and not of PaaS or IaaS. I've tried to fix this while making minimal changes to the article structure. The old "Layers" section and accompanying graphic seemed to imply that cloud computing requires a cloud client, a cloud application, a cloud platform, a cloud infrastructure, and a cloud server. Hopefully my edits have clarified that this is not the case.Jbucket (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really helped — particularly bundling clients with application. Perhaps it is worth explicitly mentioning though that cloud platforms need not be built on top of cloud infrastructure, etc. -- samj _in^out 23:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the "heavy focus on SaaS"? Got any specific examples to fix? -- samj _in^out 23:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

History of the Cloud

Have just added this section to the History of the Cloud, based on a Cloud Series that I am writing through extensive research on the evolution of the Cloud. "Maturity in the computing and software technologies further fuels supply and is driving it towards total ‘ubiquity and certainty’ in the words of Simon Wardley. Cloud is the paradigm shift that is being created as computing and software pass through this vortex of rapidly growing supply and demand into a mature utility.". This is being done in research for a Book to be published on the cloud and a course at planned at a US University. Look forward to comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watal (talk • contribs) 15:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again because you cited it to your own blog. Please propose this on the talk page once you have gotten it published somewhere. See the policy on original research and the guideline on sourcing for details. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Simon Wardely quote sounds like some marketing/research group hype that you wouldn't put in a defensible research paper. It may be Simon's job to say statements that appear to be profound at conferences, but that doesn't make it true. SteveLoughran (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth Simon's generally on point and goes into far more depth with the non-technical issues than most (Joe Weinman is another, and he does publish papers). That said, if his opinions aren't delivered by/with reliable sources then they aren't appropriate for inclusion per WP:OPINON ("the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue"). -- samj _in^out 17:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest how do we determine reliability in an area that is still evolving? Or should we continue to say the earth is flat and be afraid of saying the earth is round? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watal (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources (as our sourcing guideline defines them) say that the earth is flat, Wikipedia says the earth is flat. The threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point on Truth versus Verifiability. Also thanks to everyone for sharing the relevant policy links. Also see that self sourcing by even an expert is not advised. Still have a question though, would be great if someone can explain. Identifying Reliable Sources page says: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." How do we determine if someone is authoritative in an area that is new or evolving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watal (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Added . If you're going to mention "some have said" or some have noted," a citation should be provided as to whom said what. Navywings (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Cloud engineering for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloud engineering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud engineering until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The definition

Where are the references that support the latest definition? Is it used anywhere else, or is it personal research? It is very different to the OED definition, which must have been written by an independent expert. It is also different to many vendor’s definitions, and most end-user, non-expert definitions that I can find. I agree with the need to change the previous definition, partly because it was difficult to understand, but at least there was a reference that supported it (ie NIST).

I was not a party to previous discussions that resulted in the use of the term networks rather than the Internet. Could anyone re-iterate the reasons why this term is used, and only typically the Internet, when most of the uses that I can find say cloud computing is Internet accessible, not just network accessible?

The definition doesn't say what is included and what is excluded. Surely not all network accessible resources are included? Surely web search is excluded – but it’s computing and it’s a service accessible over the Internet? Fcalculators (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Refer to the archives for (extensive) discussions on the topic. Regarding "Internet" vs "network", I agree but the market doesn't — there's a huge amount of activity in "cloud" computing that is not connected to the Internet and I think we need to be compatible with this alternative definition (which goes beyond WP:FRINGE). Finally, web search is, arguably, a cloud service. -- samj _in^out 22:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussion as suggested, and I can see that a great deal of effort has gone into arriving at a definition, often in difficult circumstances. However, I don’t think the definition is completely accurate, sufficiently inclusive or specific.

For example, I may be misunderstanding Private Cloud, but if there is only one tenant, then the resources aren’t shared, except among the individual users of the single tenant, but then that applies to all virtualised resources.

It’s a pity that the linked-to article on Service (economics) doesn’t discuss pricing, but there is utility pricing, where consumers pay for what is used (like electricity), and subscription pricing, where consumers pay for a fixed amount whether they use none, some or all of it (like mobile phone calls). I am aware of cloud services that are charged for by both models, but there are also some that are free.

There seems to be universal agreement that cloud refers to the Internet – as a noun it’s a synonym/metaphor, and, as an adjective, it means referring to the Internet or Internet-based. There are authoritative references to support these meanings, and there is a long usage history because of the cloud symbols that have been used to represent the Internet on diagrams, and before that the telephone system. So there seems to be no disagreement about its usage and derivation. Are the developments in “cloud” computing, really just developments in Utility Computing, or in Computing as a Service (CaaS), which is a term that some sources are now using?

It doesn’t say what type of computing is included, and what is excluded. Many sources seem to agree that not everything in the cloud is included, so perhaps the definition should be more specific.Fcalculators (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wireless Synchronization technologies

we need to discuss whether it is important to introduce a new section called Wireless Synchronization, and how most cloud services are built with synchronization technologies and anywhere access in mind. I would be interested to find out if anyone else is thinking about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.102.28 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that anywhere-access is a benefit, and it should be included in an Advantages section. However, I don't believe that this article should discuss implementation. It's too complicated, and most people will just want to know what cloud computing is and what it isn't. Implementation is important, but can I suggest a separate article called Cloud computing implementation or Cloud computing technologies? I believe that only a brief mention is needed here, with a link to a more detailed article for the technical readers. Fcalculators (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Risks of cloud computing

Risks of cloud computing should be mentioned in this article to balance it. If a full discussion of risk factors is not deemed necessary a reference should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.12.6 (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your risk (e.g. multi-tenancy) is my benefit — hence the "Issues" section which avoids the whole pro/con argument. -- samj _in^out 22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, and I believe that there should be separate Advantages and Risks sections. After all, any development of computing is done because there are advantages, at least to some consumers/providers, but also there are always risks. Any pro/con arguments can be dealt with using references, and by clearly stating who is the beneficiary or risk taker. For example, there are many legal sites that discuss some of the issues/risks, including privacy for consumers, and many IT users agree that one of their benefits is financial - ie reduced TCO. Fcalculators (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I came to this page because the article states benefits exclusivly. There is no pro/con argument as there are no cons stated. 188.220.186.57 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with separate risks/cons and benefits/advantages/pros sections, but I believe that tinkering with the article is pointless, and, as I have said in other comments, it needs a complete re-write. Fcalculators (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Cloud computing's biggest risk: the transfer of the world's public knowledge to the private hands of a few companies

Various private companies are offering to their users the "free" hosting of their data, including personal and sensible data. Some of this companies (that are now offering free "cloud services" to the general public) are investing huge sums collecting and digitalizing the knowledge stored on public libraries/archives of the world. In this case the word "Cloud" is misleading because this data are phisically transferred and stored on enourmous and very costly, private server farms located in a few rich counties: there is no "cloud" but phisical servers and nets, and the term seems to be an artificial or commercial invention of some companies. In a few words the risk is the rapid transfer of many strategical and public data of the planet to the private hands of few companies, located in the richest countries, without any international law or warranty. With all the immaginable risks. An uncritical acceptance of this phenomenon is certainly dangerous for all. The poor countries, the different cultures, the simple citiziens of the world needs international warranties related the use and the access rights of their collective culture. Computing and information retrival is one of the main activity of today's humanity. Can we give away this strategical activity and the "collective memory" of the world to some private companies? This risk is not mentioned in the voice and when some months ago I inserted it was immediately deleted from someone. --Cornelius383 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As one of the people who was actively promoting the term "cloud" to describe a number of trends we were observing 5 years ago, I can assure you that it is not as nefarious as it seems (despite ill-conceived efforts by large vendors to try to take control). The concept you describe is an important issue, but your view is unbalanced — the incentives for centralisation (in terms of economies of scale, natural monopolies, etc.) are strong but on the other hand the risks need to be quantified and mitigated using the available options — reject it (not going to happen due to market forces), accept it (dangerous, as you explain), reduce it (for example through backups/synchronosiation/etc) and/or assign it (for example, by taking out insurance). I'm sure people would have argued against the introduction of the power grid (electricity as a service) too, for all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons — remember there would have been a large established industry around the provision and operation of generators (electricity as a product). -- samj _in^out 21:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a discussion of the subject, rather than how to improve the article. Fcalculators (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Because of the above comment that there is no cloud, perhaps the article could be improved if the origins of the term cloud are explained a bit more. As the article says, the word is used because of the cloud symbols that represent the Internet on diagrams, and before that the telephone system. The use of this symbol was a natural extension of the way diagrams were drawn, and the methods used to represent connections between pieces of equipment that were originally near each other in the same place, but that became distributed in different rooms, then different buildings and then different cities, etc. This usage is concrete and goes back decades. So in this sense there is a real cloud - it’s the Internet! But of course the word itself is only applied metaphorically. Fcalculators (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Overview and Characteristics

The Overview section contains a few grammatical errors (maybe typographical in origin, maybe resulting from stitching stuff together). In addition, it is still vague. While not really written as an advertisement, this section of the article still seems to be composed mostly of marketing language - it talks around the subject rather than directly describing it in concrete terms. Is cloud computing just spreading data across several servers in several places? Is it transferring workload from one set of servers to another automatically? Being on the web does not necessarily qualify something as cloud computing, just as being a fruit does not necessarily qualify something as being an orange. From this overview, I cannot really derive any concrete idea of what cloud computing is and what it is not.

In the Characteristics section, the article still seems to talk around the subject. There is not really a direct comparison being made. How are the listed examples similar to cloud computing? Also, how are they different? This should be stated explicitly. What is listed instead is simply a description of each example - that's not a comparison.

I would fix it myself, but I'm not an expert on cloud computing. Also, I recognize that it may be that cloud computing itself is just a marketing term that people and companies like to repeat to create a certain impression and it may therefore lack any objective, discrete definition. Blcklbl (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. Also, other sections are not really adequate. For example, the Architecture section doesn't say very much, and why a Deployment models section, but not Service models, Consumption models or Supplement models?

There are so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the article. For example, in the Overview, only some "Cloud computing providers deliver applications" - this is SaaS, what about IaaS, PaaS? Also, this sentence contradicts the definition when it says they "deliver applications via the Internet".

I believe that only a total re-write can fix this article, and this has been suggested before. Fcalculators (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

An article revision-history comment by 192.118.35.248 on 3 November, that “This article has been trashed up with inane and poorly written additions”, supports this suggestion for a re-write. Fcalculators (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to add a section that has companies that use cloud computing that's free or even a cost. User:Tuckerj4

I don’t see this as part of the definition of what cloud computing is and what it is not. Many types of service are provided for free, so there is nothing unique about cloud services in this respect. For example, there is the freemium article about this specific topic. Fcalculators (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why many people don’t want their data on somebody else’s server

All the strong criticism against the "Cloud" are not evident in this article and are often immediately deleted as soon as inserted from someone. The voice appears strongly unbalanced and it's full of techicalities incomprehensible to most people... Is the Cloud the "coming dream" of mankind or it's something to be avoided to preserve the privacy of each? Why many private companies are offering free "Clouds" to the people? Who pays (and why) it's not clearly explained here. Internet is full of critical positions related with the risks of cloud computing if you only type "against the cloud" on your browser, you can find tons of documents, many are written by experts and researchers: 1)Argument against the Cloud or Why you don’t want your data on somebody else’s server, 2)Google's Blogger outage makes the case against a cloud-only strategy: The same week that Google made its strongest pitch ever for putting your entire business online, one of its flagship services has failed spectacularly by Ed Bott May 13, 2011, 3)Phil Wainewright on zdnet (When will the crowd turn against private cloud?: predicted that private clouds will be discredited by year end), 4)The Twitter case against the cloud, 5)Larry Ellison from Oracle rails against the Cloud and many others you can find yourself --Cornelius383 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Please could you indicate when your edits are minor. Fcalculators (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these comments: there should be a detailed section on Risks (as well as one on Advantages); and it's full of technicalities incomprehensible to most people.

For these reasons and others, I believe that this article is in need of a re-write, even if, as suggested above, there is an Introduction to Cloud Computing article. Even with a re-write, I believe that some topics should be in a separate article for true IT specialists. Fcalculators (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

An article revision-history comment by 192.118.35.248 on 3 November, that “This article has been trashed up with inane and poorly written additions”, supports this suggestion for a re-write. Fcalculators (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree this should be rewritten. Make it so if you wish.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am working on an Introduction to Cloud Computing article first. Fcalculators (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Utility computing

I'm confused. If Cloud computing is the delivery of computing as a service rather than a product, whereby shared resources, software, and information are provided to computers and other devices as a utility (like the electricity grid) over a network (typically the Internet), then how does it differ from Utility computing, to which, I believe, this article originally redirected? Cloud computing has taken on a life of its own but, judging by the age of its maintenance template, the older Utility computing article seems to have been forgotten about. ClaretAsh 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The original voice was Utility computing. Cloud computing has taken on a life of its own and the older Utility computing article seems to have been forgotten about. I propose to restablish the redirection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.36.199.190 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

At a rough glance, a merge seems appropriate but in which direction? Which terms has the greater independent currency? ClaretAsh 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the real problem is the definition. Authoritative sources such as the OED don’t mention utility or electricity in their definitions, so why should Wikipedia? Utility consumption and pricing is only an analogy that is appropriate to some types of cloud computing, and so I believe it shouldn’t be part of the definition, but perhaps it could be used to explain some specific examples.

Although they share some characteristics, utility computing and cloud computing are different, and neither is part of the other, so I would support keeping both articles. However, perhaps the current article doesn’t do a good job of explaining the differences, but I don't think there is any point tinkering with the article to improve it in this respect. IMHO, it really needs a re-write. Fcalculators (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't think that I'm trying to offend the editors of this article, but if it is so difficult to define "Cloud computing" (as this talk page's history shows), then how do we know that the term has any meaning independent of whichever marketing company is promoting it. By extension, how do we know that different people are using the term to refer to the same field of meaning? I'm not trying to start a discussion here, and again I'm not trying to offend the people who've been arguing back and forth in the process of creating this page, but I do think it's worth thinking about. ClaretAsh 10:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there have been a lot of changes, discussions and issues, but I believe the term does have meaning independent of the vested interests, and that there is a core meaning that many sources agree on. There are authoritative definitions of cloud computing, such as the Oxford Dictionaries OUP web site, and NIST definitions, and the term has very wide currency that broadly follows these definitions. Neither of these definitions mention utility or electricity. Also, there is a long usage and seemingly unanimously agreed derivation of the word cloud as referring to the Internet, in this context. My point is, with Wikipedia’s verifiability requirements, should we be going past this usage and the authoritative sources? Fcalculators (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the B-Class rating among computing articles?

Why the B-Class rating on WikiProject Computing’s quality scale? When was this rating decided or applied? Is it ever reviewed? Did it apply to an earlier version that has been substantially changed?

I don’t see this article as “mostly complete and without major issues”, and I can’t agree that “readers are not left wanting”, as is required by the B-Class description.

Mostly complete - with no specific examples, no Service or Consumption Models sections, inadequate Architecture section and a Research section consisting of two bullet points? The Architecture section is very thin when compared with the NIST Reference Architecture and Taxonomy document. Also, it has some meaningless statements and subsections, and there are no architecture diagrams of real examples. Is the Research section needed anyway?

No major issues - what about the Discussion items above, and in the Discussion Archives?

Perhaps non-IT practitioners who don’t know what the subject is about before reading will learn something, and therefore may not be left wanting, but that’s the main problem – it doesn’t discuss many things they may need to know, IMHO. Fcalculators (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Assessment_requests and put in a B-Class rating assessment request. Fcalculators (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Verticle Market Section?

I'd like to suggest we start a section to discuss the verticle markets that have incorporated computing cloud technology. I've been working on white papers for the healthcare industries adoption of cloud based technology and have some contributions to make. --Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I intend to put something on Vertical Clouds in my introductory article. Fcalculators (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Article doesn't follow Understandability Guidelines

I believe that this article doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable guideline, which says that articles should be as accessible as possible to the widest possible audience of potentially interested readers.

Does anyone else agree with this, and could anyone comment about what can be done to improve the situation from this point of view? One possibility is to write an Introduction to Cloud Computing article, and this is suggested by the guidelines, but there are other options. Fcalculators (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

An article revision-history comment by 192.118.35.248 on 3 November, that “This article has been trashed up with inane and poorly written additions”, supports this claim. Fcalculators (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the legal narrative is way too long and should have a whole new page created for it. There should be a shorter narrative with a link to the main page for legal ramifications. This is an important topic and the trends are in favor for a lot of traffic to this page so we should put some time and effort into cleaning up this article and making it more meaningful to readers.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these comments.

In particular, the Legal section, whilst it does cover some worthwhile topics, also deals with things that are not quite relevant to what cloud computing is and what it isn’t, as is also claimed by the undue-weight banner. For example, some topics look more like social issues, and some are just common sense business processes. These may be important, but they are not really relevant to an article about cloud computing. Also, there are relevant topics that haven’t been covered, such as the reasons why regulatory or customer-SLA requirements might prevent consumers from using a Public Cloud, or which might oblige them to at least know where their service provider is located, or to allow only restricted access to their cloud systems. These considerations make true location independence and absolutely anywhere access, only typical, rather than essential, cloud computing characteristics. Other relevant information could include the role of cloud auditors and brokers, mentioned in the NIST Reference Architecture and Taxonomy document, in dealing with some of the issues.

I therefore agree that there could be a separate article, perhaps called Cloud computing legal issues, which can cover legal points of relevance to anyone contemplating moving into the cloud, or anyone in the process of contracting for cloud services. Also, some of the topics mentioned could be included in a proper Risks section, with a link to the Legal issues article.

There are other problems with this section that should be fixed. As the above comment says, with the present content, it is too long. For example, the first part is way too long for a lede – the guidelines say 4 paragraphs – so there would need to be more subsections. Also, in the sentence beginning Aspects of cloud computing services where SLAs may be pertinent include, there is no specific mention of data security and privacy, which is surely one of the real concerns. However, it is mentioned in a later paragraph and in the Security section, so this point could be rationalised. In addition, as the undue-weight comment implies, perhaps some parts could simply be omitted. Fcalculators (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay good, are we in agreement to make it so? A separate article for the legal ramifications. BTW is the editor for this section okay with this? Perhaps he can have the honor of creating this new article. I'm not sure what the protocol with this is. Can anybody go ahead and create the new article? I think there should be a disclaimer that this is not meant to offer legal advice but maybe that is already covered by Wikipedia. Once we get this taken care we can look at the full article and make further changes. I used a analytics tool and see that this article is getting a lot of traffic compared to others, so I think it deserves some attention.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Apologies for the format changes - once I made an edit they only made it worse, and I couldn't undo it, so the only way forward was to do more! Fcalculators (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can do this, but maybe wait a little while to see if there are any further comments, or to see if the original editors volunteer to do it - maybe they are legal people? I can contribute, as a technologist, but I am also working on a re-write, and/or an Introduction to Cloud Computing, plus Cloud Computing technology contributions. Fcalculators (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential audience

The potential audience for this article would include computer users that are, or that may become, cloud consumers. This includes users of common small business applications such as accounting, and medium to large organisation line-of-business, mission-critical applications, such as ERP and CRM, which are now available in the cloud as software as a service. It would also include the management of such organisations, because they may be contemplating changing their IT strategy. Also, cloud storage services can now be accessed by any PC user with an Internet connection, and many people are cloud consumers, albeit perhaps unwittingly, because of iCloud and the use of free cloud services, such as webmail or social and professional networking. Most of these consumers would be non technical people, let alone IT experts.

So most readers would probably not be interested in too much technical detail, and would only want to know what cloud computing means for them. In other words, they would need concrete descriptions of what it is and what it isn’t, plus some specific examples.

The article doesn’t say what type of computing is included or excluded, and does not give any specific examples meaningful to non-expert consumers. Fcalculators (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This article is written by a technician for other technicians--not for an ordinary consumer-user. I counted more than 50 terms that I was unfamiliar with, and several areas that I thought I didn't need to know to understand what the cloud is (my original intent for accessing this page in Wikipedia.

The first paragraph should start out with an easily digestible definition of what the cloud is and how that affects individual users. Then, that first paragraph should contain a bulleted list of what follows.

The rest of the article should be edited for relevance to end users and grouped accordingly--ordinary readers such as myself/extraordinarily-aware groups of users. Language has to be simplified in the areas not targeted for the more knowledgeable group; and if that "ordinary readers" group has almost nothing here for it--as I think would be the case--then relevant areas of the text should be adapted for it. (British English should be left in--we understand it, after all, and this article has far worse things going on with it.)

(Sudarat64 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

Limitations

One thought that crossed my mind while reading this article is the fact that it would take a truly ridiculous connection speed for cloud computing to be used for gaming and other graphics-intensive programs without hefty local processing power. This limitation is not mentioned anywhere; granted, I couldn't provide a link to a source specifically describing this limitation off the top of my head, but I'm certain that with only a modicum of effort such a reference could be found, and it would be valid point for the article. Cloud computing works great for research, socializing, and even light gaming (existing browser games offer good examples) but it will not work for hardcore and graphics-intensive gaming, such as World of Warcraft as an example, for quite some time. Eventually, maybe, but modern cloud computing just doesn't work yet in such environments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.27.153 (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am including an Examples section in an Introduction to Cloud Computing article, and I have an Unsuitable applications subsection in this. Currently, I mention real-time, heavy transaction processing as such an example, but I could include graphics intensive games as well if a reference can be found. However, what about FetchTV, which is multi-cast over the Internet? Wouldn’t any graphics intensive gaming application be similar in bandwidth requirements to that? Surely the computer power for the processing could be made available at a web site? Fcalculators (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal section

Well somebody had to do it, so I did it. I can't see anyone complaining but they may want to embellish the narrative I put in.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with moving the Legal section to a different page, although some of the issues mentioned could be covered more briefly in different sections of the article. Fcalculators (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hacked! resource

from November 2011 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE ... intro ... "As email, documents, and almost every aspect of our professional and personal lives moves onto the “cloud”—remote servers we rely on to store, guard, and make available all of our data whenever and from wherever we want them, all the time and into eternity—a brush with disaster reminds the author and his wife just how vulnerable those data can be. A trip to the inner fortress of Gmail, where Google developers recovered six years’ worth of hacked and deleted e‑mail, provides specific advice on protecting and backing up data now—and gives a picture both consoling and unsettling of the vulnerabilities we can all expect to face in the future." by James Fallows Also see computer insecurity. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this sort of thing should be outlined in a Risks section, but I don't believe the article should act as a blog for social concerns about technology development - albeit probably valid concerns. Fcalculators (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Raise the Importance Level

Importance should be increased to Top or High but something better than Mid

First off I think it deserves it because Cloud computing is a growing trend, and two because the analytics tools proves that this article is generating a high amount of visitors. Plus it is basically qualified to be of Top Importance because in essence it is a form of a Operating System.

Increasing the Importance level would attract more highly skilled editors which would make this article more attractive and more meaningful. --Ourhistory153 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more with this comment, but I am not sure how it is done. I was preparing a post on this myself, and I was going to look at traffic comparisons between the Cloud Computing article and some high-importance computing articles such as programming languages. I will post more supporting information when I have done this. Fcalculators (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, just some quick comparisons. The Operating system article itself has approximately half the traffic of the Cloud computing article, and similarly for specific articles such as Linux. The Programming language article has fewer than this, and articles on specific very common languages like C++ have even less. So if traffic is a factor in determining importance, then Cloud computing should rank very highly. Of course, the topic is also being discussed very widely by many people connected with IT as consumers or practitioners, and many organisations are moving into the cloud. Fcalculators (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fcalculators, I suppose we need to identify all the editors that are playing a proactive part in the articles formation and get them involved. Also find the editor who put in the legal section and invite them to set up a new article. Do you know who that is? And the other players? I've never been able to communicate with other editors effectively with this system and sure I'm missing out on some better methods .--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an automatic way of finding contributors of specific parts of the article, and the only method I am aware of is to painstakingly search through the History pages. Fcalculators (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be helpful. Haven't used it myself but it looks like what you're looking for. --Kvng (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Assessment_requests and put in a assessment request. Hopefully that will attract some attention to some expert editors. Also I think we should start linking cloud computing with other computer related pages where ever appropriate. Follow what I do for this Cloud Computing article and I will follow you. Whenever there is a talk session it seems a good idea to have someone else backup what you are saying.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added to your request at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Assessment page. Fcalculators (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have requested a B-Class quality rating assessment. Fcalculators (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've assessed the article as requested. Importance has been raised to Top reflecting the huge buzz around the topic at present. If it turns out to be just a fad, we can adjust downwards later. Quality is borderline B or C. Refs are abundant and tidy. There's a lot of room to improve accessibility and remove repetition. I tagged the lead as being too short. --Kvng (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

link and "lock"

Show wp "lock" please, and wikilink Telecommunications Industry Association for TIAonline.org

99.181.130.155 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Vertical Market Removal?

The Vertical Market section was removed. I would like other editors to comment on this rather than leave one editor to make this decision. My intention was this was going to expand into different verticals with links to different articles. I request the opinions of other editors on this issue before I restore it.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor Content Mis-match - Servers and the Cloud

Just a minor point...

The current diagram shows "servers" outside the cloud. However, this referenced content statement within the article - Cloud computing extends this boundary to cover servers as well as the network infrastructure.[28] - indicates "servers" are now considered within the cloud. Perhaps a revised diagram could resolve this "inconsistency". I suggest something showing servers both internal and external to the cloud since servers, at times, are like as other "user access devices" and are also cloud components...along with a brief explanation.

Nealct56 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Towards an improved intro for this article

Generally, the intro should be shortened and made more concise. Here are some specific points:

• "Cloud computing is a marketing term": Well by now, it is more than a marketing term. It is reality in many peoples lives and it is big business.

Done --Bikeborg (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• (I like the analogy with the electricity grid. Makes the concept better to grasp for non-experts.)

Somebody wiped it out. I will eventually restore it. --Bikeborg (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 4 "cloud computing defined" appears to be a scam to generate clicks on somebody's web page. The cloud computing definition should be here on Wikipedia and not elsewhere. Should be removed.
• The remarks on thin client applications and screen sharing are too specific for the introductory part of the article.

Maybe we need a separate section where we can go into more detail about certain cloud aspects. Maybe into the Characteristics section?

• I am not familiar with the term "converged infrastructure". Is that a Wikipedia notable concept or a marketing term?
• Reference to US government initiative: There are many many cloud initiatives in business and administration across the world. We should not discuss them here in the introduction.

I was bold and removed it. Please let me know if you disagree --Bikeborg (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

--Bikebot (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good list. I have replaced the unreliable ref. Converged infrastructure is definitely notable. --Kvng (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The more I study the article the more it appears to me to require an overhaul. For example:

• The characteristics section talks more about the benefits than the characteristics. Should we separate benefits (value prop) and characteristics into two sections?
• Section 4.1: Looks like a Google afficionado entered the examples. Seriously: Devices specifically designed to be cloud clients are still the exception. Most devices are multi-purpose. I will try to clarify the policy on product examples.(see Wikipedia:spam)
• Section 4.5: Server: Isn't the server part of the infrastructure layer? As well as the network?
• The list of references needs a major review. There is a lot of them that are more incidental than fundamental reference literature.

--Bikeborg (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision of Layers Section

I am currently working on a revision of the Layers section. The main problem I see currently is that the current text does not prominently reflect the Service Models (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) that everybody talks about and that are also defined in the NIST paper.

Also, cloud client and cloud servers are different beasts from the service models.

Therefore, I propose to do the following changes:

• Make one section called Service Models describing IaaS, PaaS, SaaS
• Make a separate section about cloud clients.
• Create a new picture

I am working on a draft text here - but it will take some time. Any help appreciated.

--Bikeborg (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Private Cloud statement "must buy, build, operate" is not true...

Private cloud infrastructure CAN BE and IS procured "as a service" that is billed monthly as a utility and based on allocated capacity. Utility billed private cloud infrastructure is currently in operation in several Federal government agencies, and originated in the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). DISA is the Department of Defense Combat Service Agency that provides centralized enterprise IT and global communications to the U.S. Military and other Defense Agencies). Payments are made monthly to capacity services vendors and include all maintenance, support, and tech refresh.

Additional users of "capacity services" IT infrastructure as a service offerings include, at the least, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Air Force Medical Support Agency (AFMSA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

HISTORY DISA began procuring mainframe and client server computing capacity as a service in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Storage as a service began in 2003. The 2001 acquisition was to Unisys for Unisys mainframe and storage. In 2003, the acquisition vehicle was called ACE, for Assured Computing Environment, and included IBM mainframe equipment, plus storage.

In 2005, several multi-year "Server Processor Environment" contracts were awarded by DISA for on-demand compute capacity as a service. Winning vendors included: SUN, Hewlett Packard, ViON Corporation, and Apptis. The award of these contracts was discussed in this article: http://gcn.com/articles/2006/10/24/disa-on-demand.aspx

In 2007, storage as a service was procured on its own multi-year contract, Enterprise Storage Services (ESS), which is discussed in this article: http://www.military-information-technology.com/mit-home/367-mit-2011-volume-15-issue-10-november/4995-storage-on-demand.html

Note: the vendor-owned equipment provided under the Enterprise Storage Services contraact provides the "private cloud storage" that is included in the DISA RACE DoD Private Cloud offering. The DISA RACE private cloud was launched in 2008. "RACE" stands for Rapid Access Computing Environment. RACE features user-self provisioning for highly virtualized client server computing (X-86, Linux, Solaris) and enterprise storage capacity on demand in a cloud offering.

The initial Federal breeding and testing ground for the "capacity services" (capacity on demand) method to acquire IT infrastructure as a service was the DISA data centers (called "Defense Enterprise Computing Centers" or "DECCs"; and "Tactical Enterprise Computing Centers" or "TECCs"). The DISA DECCs are built and operated at Tier IV+ standards, and DECC-equivalency is the defacto standard for U.S. military and defense agency data centers. Discussion about what constitutes "DECC-equivalency" is not widely discussed in unlassified forums, however reference to "DECC equivalent" sites can be found in this unclassified DoD budget document: http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2006/DISA/0303170K.pdf

These recurrence of Federal government acquisitions of computing and server infrastructure, plus the addition of a new network equipment "as a capacity service" has proven across many years that the use of vendor-owned equipment provisioning computing, storage, and network infrastructure as-a-service inside government-owned and operated data centers is cost effective and significantly lowers risk of security breach. In fact, security breaches were so effectively negated that in 2011 the Department of Defense determined the DISA DECCs to be more secure and cost effective hosting environments than the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can provide for itself, and the VA began using the DECCs to host its data. This is significant because the CIO of the VA must report to Congress on a quarterly basis its status in protecting against additional data breaches, following the 2006 data breach whereby 26.5 million records were inappropriately downloaded from the VA.

IN CONSIDERATION of the facts and examples detailed above, involving highly credible customers (U.S. Federal government agencies; large and well-regarded multi-national technology manufacturers as well as innovative small businesses) and occuring for many years, I request that you correct the article to indicate that Private Cloud infrastructure is, in fact, available in on-premise, on-demand, and billed as a utility.

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFemmeTech (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Cloud computing ancestor.

In the early sixties, MIT's Project MAC aimed at provide shared computing resources at a time when one who needed computing power had to record his own programs and data on punched cards. In these days the most common, not to say unique, communication tool was the TTY teleprinter.

Unhappily the first experiments of on-line computing, by linking a TTY to a computer, accepted a very limited number of simultaneous users. The reasons were the low performance and capacity yielded by the hardware available in the sixties.

Nonetheless, from an architectural design standpoint, Project MAC outlined a general computing environment, including a high degree of security/privacy and a real ability to take advantage of more powerful hardware to come.

MULTICS systems, designed and engineered by General Electric, have represented a milestone in the project development. Bell Laboratories operated several of these machines for their computer developments, including UNIX (allegedly named after "MULTIX"), as General Electric/Honeywell did for their software factories (PL1 being the main working language).

On the other hand, General Electric made commercial offers for "utility computing services" based on the same platforms, by 1968.

Astonishingly, the concept and the services they marketed were similar to those provided by the present "cloud computing".

"Independent" personal micro computers were by large more in line with the mood of that period, and Utility computing did not emerge as a success ! A simpler version, Time-sharing, had been a little more successful.

Bernard Huet193.248.13.239 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 193.248.17.158 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.248.13.239 (talk)

Technical Gibberish

This article is written by a technician for other technicians--not for an ordinary consumer-user. I counted more than 50 terms that I was unfamiliar with, and several areas that I thought I didn't need to know to understand what the "cloud" is (my original intent for accessing this page in Wikipedia.

The first paragraph should start out with an easily digestible definition of what the cloud is and how it affects individual users. Then, that first paragraph should contain a bulleted list of what follows.

The rest of the article should be edited for relevance to end users and grouped accordingly: ordinary readers such as myself/extraordinarily-aware groups of users. Language has to be simplified in the areas not targeted for the more knowledgeable group; and if the "ordinary readers" group has almost nothing here for it--as I think might be the case--then relevant areas of the text should be adapted for it. (British English should be left in--we understand it, after all, and this article has far worse things going on with it.)

I didn't understand what the "cloud" was before I accessed this page, and felt so talked down to, that I never did realize my goal at the end.

(Sudarat64 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

The criticism is valid. I don't believe the article deserve a B rating. I have taken it down a notch to C. I will try to find time to give this some love. --Kvng (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is now an generally accessible Introduction to cloud computing article, which I believe overcomes these criticisms.

Fcalculators (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I gave this article only two stars for objectivity, since there isn't a lot of it to be found—the entire article reads like sales literature. In my mind, cloud computing is another synonym for snake oil. The concept stinks from a security standpoint. "Lessee, we'll give control of our data to some unknown entity, who may well steal it for nefarious needs." Sounds pretty stupid to me. If you don't own it you can't control it.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Gibberish - yes, Technical - hardly. As pointed above, whole article reads as sales add, probably because "Cloud computing" is not a technical term, but fashionable weasel word invented by marketing people trying to rebrand decades old concepts as something revolutionary.

Unfortunately it is in frustratingly common use usually by non-tech personnel in tech meetings, presentations etc. Unsurprisingly when asked to elaborate and be more specific, we usually get either more weasel words or description of simple web service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.61.64.216 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

History: AWS Launch Date

Article claims: " launched Amazon Web Service (AWS) on a utility computing basis in 2006" which leads to a conclusion that AWS was launched in 2006. However, AWS was launched in July 2002, as noted on the Wikipedia AWS page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services) the source of which is Amazon's mediakit timeline, undoubtedly reliable source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-corporateTimeline

The sentence should be reworded if it meant some more specific connotation and some sort of clarification about 2002 date must be added. In current form article leaves an impression that first commercial cloud service (AWS) was offered 4 years later than it actually was. That's no small difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inadarei (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

MERGING USING CLOUD TECHNOLOGY WITH DEFINITIION

I don't think Wikipaedia should merge the two subjects. A definition of what Cloud technology is, should preview a discussion of how it works and how to use it. In the UK, Cloud is still a foreign term and will not be adopted by the vast majority of businesses anytime soon.

For starters, let's work out what it is rather than how to use it.

To get the ball rolling, I think - in a personal capacity - it is great news that our data is being hosted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.N.Smith (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiving bot adjustment

I've adusted archiving to preserve discussion for 180 days but reducing the minimum number of discussion from 7 to 5 (default). There are some unanswered discussions on the page that are at risk of being prematurely archived. I've fond on other articles that 30 days is too short for many technical topics. I have reviewed previous discussion and think these changes reasonably accommodate stated requirements there. --Kvng (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to Cloud computing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Introduction to Cloud computing popped up on a new article list, and whilst I appreciate the huge amount of work that has been put into it, I think it might infringe the WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:NOTTEXTBOOK guidelines. The title alone seems wrong for an encyclopedia. But as this isn't my area of expertise, I thought I'd raise it here for those more involved to decide whether it's a useful article or not. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted the Introduction to cloud computing article in order to improve the Wikipedia content for this subject. As you can see if you read the past discussions, there have been many complaints about the main article, and often from an understandability or end-user point of view (such as the Technical gibberish comment above). I have called for improvements to (or even a re-writing of) the article, and I was responsible for the call to have it downgraded to a C rating. In the discussions, I suggested that one way forward was to write an introductory article. There are many such articles (you can see all/many of them by typing "Introduction to" or "Introduction to a" - or b, c etc - into the search box). The article has been edited by a member of the computing group, and described by that editor as a "generally accessible, non-technical article", so it seems that others accept it.

I still believe that the current article needs much improvement, and because of the introductory article, I believe it can be more openly technical. Fcalculators (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't assume we need an introductory article. The topic is not all that technical. The problem here is that the current article needs work. I think it can be improved by incorporating this new work into it and deleting a bunch of the difficult to understand material. I have put up merge banners. --Kvng (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the current article needs work, but I believe that the subject can be quite technical, especially if the article explains how it all works by dealing with the architecture of cloud datacentres, and the implementation technologies. Also, I believe it would be beneficial to cover the following from a more technical point of view: all types of service, deployment and typical characteristics, with specific diagrams; the various ways that providers can operate, using in-house resources and/or other service providers (as evidenced by comments in the discussion archives, the layers diagram can confuse some readers by implying that each layer must be built on top of the ones below); details of specific examples, rather than just one or two-sentence descriptions; P2P versus client-server examples; the NIST Reference Architecture.

This is a top-importance, extensive subject with a large and wide audience of technical and non-technical readers, and with aspects ranging from simple facts to in-depth technologies for consumer access and provider implementations. Also, the examples of cloud computing cover the whole range of activities, professional and personal. So I can’t see that a single article can cover all of this adequately, without being too long or difficult to follow for many readers.

My idea with the introductory article was to deal with the basics, especially for the non-technical section of the audience, so that the cloud-computing article itself could then be more technical without end-users complaining that they couldn’t understand it. Fcalculators (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction? Really? It is longer than this "main" article, and, it did not seem to be any easier to figure out than this. 85.217.20.177 (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no problem that it's longer than the main article, since it's an "introduction to the topic", not "the introduction of the article". As Fcalculators points out, they have different audiences with different needs; the Introduction article should include a general description of the field, and the main article a detailed explanation of the primary technical concerns. "Introduction to..." articles are common for several high profile topics (we even have a template for it). As long as it doesn't try to teach "how to build your own cloud service" and keep itself with defining the basic terms, it should be fine. Diego (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge I would support a merge, just so that a central high quality item can emerge. In terms of overall quality these two are actually better than many of the other ProjComputing articles out there. But it would still make sense to have a really nice item as a show case of how Wikipedia can actually achieve scholarly status. However, I did oppose merge of Cloud computing security into here. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge. I don't seem to grasp the logic of an Encyclopedia holding a universe of articles plus another parallel universe of "Introduction To..." articles on the same subjects. It would be not only unnecessary, it would be simply ridiculous. --AVM (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge BUT This article is already uncomfortably long, and merging the very valuable content from Introduction will push it beyond practical. Likely we will need to split off bits and pieces soon anyway, and some elements of Introduction might then rate their own, something like specialised language of cloud computing, &c. YamaPlos talk 19:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge. I suspect that, once merged, users would benefit from seeing terms such as "Platform as a Service", "Software as a Service", etc, and "Public Cloud" and "Private Cloud" being the focus of the article. When I say focus, I mean these things should appear first and be prominent. A Wikipedia article isn't a treatise or a thesis on a topic. Words like 'metaphor', 'model' and 'heterogeneous', 'abstraction' and 'denote' obfuscate the topic. The tone of many Wikipedia articles seems to be more about the practical and less about the theoretical, especially with regard to an article like this. Both articles could use a lot of editing (removal of content) once merged. SunKing2 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to perform this merge. I've reviewed Introduction to cloud computing and finding that material there is already included here or is of dubious quality/reliablity. In short I'm not finding anything of value in Introduction to cloud computing to merge. I've attempted to contact the primary author user:Fcalculators but have received no response. Therefore I have WP:PRODed Introduction to cloud computing. If anyone thinks it needs to be rescued and would like to take a crack at it, please follow the WP:PROD procedures to abort my proposed deletion. --Kvng (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My PROD was contested by user:Fcalculators who then promised to provide some justification for separate existence of the intro article but has not despite multiple prompts. So I've gone ahead and redirected the intro article here. If that needs to be reverted, please discuss it here first. --Kvng (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can’t quite understand this move, given the recent events concerning the deletion banner.

The banner was posted with a 7-day period for objections, which itself seems short, but, in any case, the deletion happened even well before this short period had elapsed – what was the rush?

The instructions say that anyone can object to a deletion proposal simply by removing the banner, which I did. The instructions also say that once removed, the banner cannot be replaced, which must mean that the deletion can’t be performed. Therefore, I believe that it should be undone, unless I am misunderstanding something.

People have been voting with their feet, and the article has had between 11000-20000 viewers per month, with some viewers making useful content changes and reasonable talk-page contributions on specific details. So it seems that many people value the content. There have been no talk-page claims concerning dubious quality or reliability, and, on the contrary, the article was rating quite highly for Trustworthiness, Objectivity etc.

It was included in the Computing project – wouldn’t it be a good idea to see how it is rated as part of this project? Fcalculators (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the conversation here. As editors, we collaboratively decide how to organize information on the encyclopedia. There is a clear consensus above that we don't need or want two articles on this subject. I don't find your new arguments particularly persuasive. The intro article had 12,120 views in June. In comparison, cloud computing was viewed 433,043 times. I am one of the (self-appointed) assessors on the computing project. The intro article was never assessed but I would give it, at best, a C rating. The cloud computing article has not been reassessed since recent improvements but it is almost a B at this point. --Kvng (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have re-read the articles on merging, consensus and deletion, and, from this material, I believe that, for the following reasons, the deletion and re-direction of the introductory article have not been following documented processes:

• From the merge article, in row IV of the merge steps table, it says that “In … controversial cases, this determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally done by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion”. I am not aware of anything abnormal about this particular merge case, so it seems that the consensus was not arrived at according to this process.

• In any case, I don’t believe that a consensus existed, because, in the consensus article, it states that, when reaching consensus through discussion, “The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution”. I certainly don’t regard the outcome as a reasonable solution, and I don’t believe that even some of those who supported the merge would think so either, when they talk about “very valuable content” and “so that a central high quality item can emerge”.

• Also from the consensus article, under determining consensus, it says that ”no consensus normally results in the article … being kept”.

• There were only a very few contributors, with some for and some against, so not even a clear majority supported the merge. I believe we can include the comment on not merging the definitions in those against, even though it was placed at the top of the page, rather than in the discussion section. I believe the comment on “parallel universe” can be discounted because it is against introductory articles in general, even though they are allowed for in the guidelines, and there is the following quote from the Deletion guidelines for administrators, when discussing consensus: “Arguments that contradict policy … are frequently discounted”? More people contributed to the introductory article talk page and made edits than participated in this discussion.

• In the merge article, under reasons for merging, it says that “Merging should be avoided if …. The separate topics could be expanded into … standalone … articles.” Common sense says that this is the case here, and there can be two separate articles, one for beginners and one for a more technical audience, and, if this can go ahead, there will then not be the overlap that exists at present. Other contributors to this talk section agree with this approach, it is allowed for in the guidelines, and common sense says that it is appropriate for a top importance subject with a very wide audience, including large groups that have different needs.

• In the deletion banner, it says that “You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason”, so I objected to deletion and removed the message. The banner also says that, “If … removed, it should not be replaced”, which must mean that the deletion can’t subsequently be performed.

For the above reasons, I have reverted the re-direction edit. With the article visible, it may give an independent editor the opportunity to rate it as part of the computing project. If you have any concerns about the content, and if you think that some of it is of dubious quality or reliability, please can you detail your specific concerns on the talk page?

I agree with your comment above, that producing articles is a collaborative process, but I am not exactly sure of the point that you are making. I have been collaborating by contributing to these discussion pages for some time, and, at a point in the past when there was quite a bit of controversy about the content, I suggested that one way forward was to produce an introductory article. This suggestion was present for quite some time, and no one objected, so, since it was allowed for in the guidelines, I proceeded to write one.

I still don't believe that this main article is of very good quality, and I will provide some detailed criticisms shortly. Fcalculators (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If I took any liberties with procedures, I apologize. I think I used them appropriately and they have had the desired effect of bringing you into the discussion when more polite requests for input had failed. I still don't see a good justification in what you've said for the existence of a separate intro article. Sure, they're allowed but that doesn't mean one is desired for Cloud computing. I have requested that other editors weigh in on this (again). --Kvng (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I nominated the fork for deletion, please discuss the issue there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems in first paragraph

• I don't understand why reference 1 is used twice in the same sentence. Can't we just cite it once at the end of the first sentence?
• Reference 1 doesn't really provide the same definition as given in the first sentence.
• Although I don't dispute the stated origin, the use of two two primary references here makes me suspect original research. We need to find a better reference for this. --Kvng (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Both references have amorphous symbols identified as clouds that represent networks and both mention the Internet, so there is no OR there. The first reference (patent 5,485,455) was cited because it was the earliest (Jan 1994) I could find in the patent files. The second reference (patent 6,069,890) was filed more than two years later, but was cited because it has more details in the diagrams. Greensburger (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Research for Wikipedia is done a bit differently than other research. We prefer secondary sources. The patents are primary sources and while it is possible they are where the term "cloud computing" comes from, they don't actually say anything about the origin of the term. --Kvng (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Patent 6,069,890, the second source cited in this article, is a secondary source and refers to its primary source U.S. patent 5,790,548 Fig. 1 which is copied exactly as Fig. 1 in the secondary source as part of the "Background" section in which prior technology is described. Fig. 1 in described in both patents as "a simplified diagram of the Internet" and includes multiple cloud symbols. Patent 5,790,548 column 5 lines 56-57 refer to "the cloud indicated at 49 in Fig. 1" which is copied in secondary patent 6,069,890 for Fig. 1. Patent 6,069,890 Figures 4 and 8 include an amorphous symbol which is labled "INTERNET" and has a reference number 106 which is referenced as "cloud 106". The inventors listed in patent 6,069,890 are not the same as the inventors in patent 5,790,548.

U.S. Patent 5,485,455, the first source cited in this article, was cited solely to establish that the network symbol was already being called a "cloud" in January 1994. Primary sources can be cited as evidence of priority, just as the original U.S. Constitution can be cited to prove that it said what it was later reported to have said. Secondary sources are actually less reliable than primary sources in such instances, because of editorial bias or misinterpretation.

The two sources cited are not intended as sources for the expression "cloud computing" which would requires a third reference. Greensburger (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The refs are attached to the following statement in the article: "The name comes from the use of a cloud-shaped symbol". If these are not intended as sources for the expression it seems like they're misplaced. --Kvng (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

These patents are very interesting but the second patent is not a reliable secondary source. A reliable secondary source would be an newspaper or magazine article or a book that referred to the patents and drew conclusions about them. Jojalozzo 22:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The second patent 5,790,548 was not the unedited writings of four engineers that was rubber stamped and printed by the US Patent Office. This patent was rewritten by patent lawyers working for the independent law firm of Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel and further edited by the US Patent Office examiner. The rewrite process provided by the lawyers was every bit as rigorous and critical as that provided by the editorial staff of a book publishing or newspaper or magazine publishing company. And their polished work was given further critical review by the patent examiner whose job is to reject ambigous, vague, or misleading text or drawings, mistatements of fact, and self-serving puffery. If the expression "cloud" as a metaphor for the Internet had been deemed too silly or confusing, one of the lawyers or the examiner would have required a different expression. Patents that were edited by law firm lawyers are reliable sources. Greensburger (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Patents are not sources for statements about who originated certain terminology and neither of these patents make any claims about originating the term. That could be a trademark issue but not patent issue. We need a source that states this is the origin or even "one of the earliest uses" of the term. It's not our role to do that research ourselves. I have removed the citations as unnecessary in the lead. If we have consensus here to use those sources to show the origin of the term they can be used in a terminology or etymology section. Jojalozzo 22:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a reliable reference for origination of the "cloud" symbol would be a good addition to this article. But the references to the patents bear on a different issue, the fact that the term "cloud" was and is a generic symbol for the Internet or similar network, without providing the complex details of its structure, just as a picture of a car is a generic symbol that implies the complex internals (engine, ignition circuitry, etc), regardless of who first used the symbol. Greensburger (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement where they were used for reference concerned a) the source of the term and b) the use of a cloud as an graphical abstraction of complex infrastructure. We agree that the referenced patents do not support (a) and I see no support for (b) either. They just say they use a cloud, not why they use it. There must be more recent sources that support (b) directly. You are clearly an excellent researcher and I'm sure you can locate what we need. However, we don't need references in the lead as long as we cover the statements later in the main body of the article. Jojalozzo 03:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference 1 holds only definitions for IaaS, Paas and SaaS

Now there are now 10 types of cloud computing listed, but the reference mentions only 3. Needs improvement. Step0h (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the reference given includes only the usual three services, and so it is inappropriate for the whole list, but this isn't the only issue. For example, the list isn't exhaustive, and, because it is only a simple list, some readers could get the incorrect impression that the items are mutually exclusive. Together with the inappropriate reference, this gives the appearance that the additions to the list are ill-considered. Also, why have such a list in this section at all, when there is a Service Models section? The items in the list should really be part of that section, with some of them included as part of the three main services.

There are many other issues with this article, including further inappropriate references. For example, the analogy with electricity utilities is incorrectly supported by a reference to the NIST Definition, but the NIST material doesn't use these words or such an analogy at all.

Besides the inappropriate references, some whole sections have no references, and some of the claims aren't supported by a reference, which gives the impression that they are personal opinions.

Lack of references, or inappropriate references, is against one of the most fundamental of Wikipedia requirements - to be encyclopaedic, all material must be supported by an appropriate reference. Fcalculators (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Patently awful article

For a top-importance subject with a very large and wide audience, this really is an inadequate article. Many criticisms of it can be found throughout the Talk Archives, even before the comments under Technical gibberish above. Some of these criticisms still apply, and there has been no substantial improvement in the article over a long period.

It contains too many inaccurate, contradictory, confusing, half-true, meaningless, vague or completely incorrect statements, as well as some disorganised, insubstantial or pointless sections. As stated in the Technical gibberish comments, there is too much jargon and irrelevant material, especially for end-users, who would make up a significant section of the audience. Also, with no references, some of the material appears to be only personal opinion.

It has been a C-rated article for a very long time - officially since January, which is itself too long, but it had really been at C level well before then. There have been several hundred thousand viewers per month during this period, and this amounts to millions in total. At least some of these viewers would not be impressed with the article, to say the least, but only a very few would take the trouble to voice their opinions. Worse still, many of these viewers would know no better than to take the material at face value, and so they are not being at all well served.

It is clear that many of the 1000s of piecemeal edits made over recent years have not really been an improvement. Sensible changes are often overwritten, and the article has never attained any sort of stability or sustained improvement. So it seems that a different approach is required, if coverage of this important topic is to be at least adequate. Fcalculators (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Help: reference to add

There is a section on this page without a citation and where I think that some illustrative information from The Mobile Wave would be useful to add. I won't add the book as a reference since I work at MicroStrategy, the company founded by the book's author and I'm here on behalf of the company. I've given the citation below and details of new information to add to the "Characteristics" section.

This is purported to lower barriers to entry, as infrastructure is typically provided by a third-party and does not need to be purchased for one-time or infrequent intensive computing tasks. For example, cloud computing may allow start-ups to avoid the costs they would have needed for data centers.

Citation:ref name=Saylor7-8>{{cite book |title=The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything |last=Saylor |first=Michael |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2012 |publisher=Vanguard Press |location= |isbn=1593157207 |page=7-8 |pages= |url= |accessdate=20 September 2012}}</ref>

Any editor who can help here would be appreciated. Also, let me know if there are any other pages where info from the book can be added if it provides new, helpful details. Thanks, --Rkrueger (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edited History Section

I came across a blog post that talked about things that cloud computing consist of today. The blog was dated in December of 2007. I feel the writer should be credited for his work here. Since it predates some of the other history in cloud computing. The blog post could have caused inspiration to other developers in Cloud Computing. The blog that I'm referring to can be found at one of two locations.

http://techmeout.org/we-are-obsolete http://techmeout.blogspot.com/2007_12_08_archive.html

OSRules (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that this blog or it's writer had some specific impact on the history of cloud computing? Your personal opinion that it 'Could have caused inspiration' is not very strong justification for this being in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately no I can't provide any other information other then I did see the blog post and it's date. Which I felt was decent enough. Mainly because it Cloud Services such as Google Drive have pretty much merged many services mentioned in the blog together to create a cloud computing environment. Could just have been coincidental or foresite. But I thought the date would have sufficed. Sorry for any coomplications.... OSRules (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical contribution of Biju John and Souheil Khaddaj

I have removed content added to the history section concerning a paper or book by Biju John and Souheil Khaddaj because it appears to be primarily promotion of their work rather than historical information. Two sources offered are links to general commercial content about cloud, unrelated to the cited work. The source that appears to support the cited work uses an unpublished, incorrect or non-existent ISBN, possibly for proceedings of a conference (which are not highly reliable, just a notch away from self-published). Even if this turns out to be a valid document, I don't see that it is a historical contribution. It may have a place elsewhere in the article but not in the history section. (Similarly other content that's only months or a year or two old do not belong in the history section and appear more to be news-related rather than encyclopedic.) Jojalozzo 12:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Modern Origins Of Cloud Computing

It might be that the true origins of cloud computing - as understood today - was originated between 1981-1984. Domain Name Services (DNS) had not been in general usage at that time so only a single network was defined for "virtual data". Ref: US Patent # 4432057 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddcs (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 November 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

An official definition can be found here: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.71.1 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 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)

Both agree that “cloud computing” was born as a marketing term. At the time, telecom networks were already referred to as the cloud; in engineering drawings, a cloud represented the network. From http://www.technologyreview.com/news/425970/who-coined-cloud-computing/. This is not an urban legend, and the speculation about Super Mario has no place in this article. Can someone please update the "Origin of the Term" section? --User:Phillywrap —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing between virtualisation and abstraction

Abstraction is a process of simplification that conceals the details of a system at its interface. Abstraction is also used to refer to the result of this process.

Virtualisation does not necessarily conceal details. I propose replacement of the phrase "Virtualization abstracts the physical infrastructure" with "Virtualization generalizes the physical infrastructure". "Virtual machines versatile platforms for systems and processes" ISBN-13 9781558609105

--Edepa (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC) The proposal made above has not received any feedback. I shall proceed to make the modification if no counter-proposals are received by 15th July. --Edepa (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dell no longer supports OpenStack

According to the article http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/052013-dell-cloud-269969.html Dell no longer supports OpenStack, and thus that information should be added into "Open Standards" section

Samveen (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Dell is dumping OpenStack is silly. From the article: "Instead, the company will focus on selling OpenStack-powered private clouds that run on Dell hardware and software"

What the article is really saying is that Dell is backing off from having a public cloud product.

Robert.Harker (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek reference

I've removed the section "Early references in popular culture". McCoy accessing the Enterprise's (single) computer in orbit from a device on a planet's surface is not cloud computing. At the most, it's client-server architecture.Vykk (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My humble opinion

In my humble opinion the author has done very well with the article. It was interesting to read it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.91.24 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Implications for archiving; long-term storage

Earlier in this talk page it's mentioned how Dell is dropping its support of some cloud architecture. The Issues section is missing a discussion regarding long-term archiving/accessibility of private data. As the cloud forces people to rely on a third party to store and take care of files ranging from personal photos to purchased music to business documents, with many (perhaps unwisely) choosing not to have a ground-based backup on their own computers (and with tablets having only limited storage capacity, even that option is becoming more uncommon), there must be concerns over the ability to ensure that a file saved in the cloud will still be accessible 10 years from now. As noted in the Privacy section, as it is third parties are capable of altering or deleting files (as those who experienced the great Amazon "1984" e-book deletion fiasco of a few years ago will recall vividly, or more recently those who were unable to view purchased movies on Netflix (a form of cloud) on Christmas Day 2012 because their server failed). Archives in government as it is are still trying to get a handle on how to archive e-mails and other digital-only documents so that historians 50 years from now will be able to access them, the fact so many documents and files are being relegate to the cloud without backup or permanent printed copies must be a concern to someone. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source where these concerns are discussed – e.g. a national newspaper or a periodical like Forbes or The Economist – that would make a good addition to the article. - Pointillist (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Profession API manufacturer

can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.73.165.117 (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disadvantages of cloud computing

I proffered numerous disadvantages&#151;clearly derivable from common-sense consideration of the "advantages," coupled with observation of how cloud migration has impaired service and all but obviated security&#151;but the Wikiadmins disagreed and deleted all of it before I could say "Jack Robinson," UNQUESTIONABLY because I disagreed with the mantras proffered by their deep-pocketed corporate sponsors whom they claim not to have.

Why is it unquestionable? "A city that is set on an [sic] hill cannot be hid," once quoth a famous rabbi and Saviour.

Anyone else had similar misadventures? (Like I don't know the answer to this . . .) 50.128.184.140 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Natural gas poses amazing

Natural gas poses amazing some transportation problems and is mainly shipped through pipelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.105.72 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For all VPS plans

[/CENTER]

[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Navy"]Main Features[/COLOR][/SIZE] [LIST] [*][COLOR="Magenta"]FREE[/COLOR] Website Transfers [*][COLOR="Magenta"]FREE[/COLOR] 24/7 technical support [*][COLOR="Magenta"]FREE[/COLOR] Data Backups [*][COLOR="Magenta"]99%[/COLOR] Network Uptime Gurantee [*][COLOR="Magenta"]24x7 [/COLOR] Support Online Gurantee [*][COLOR="Magenta"]30[/COLOR] Days Money Back Gurantee [*][COLOR="Magenta"]Daily Backups[/COLOR] Gurantee [/LIST]

[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"][B]UNLIMITED[/B][/COLOR] For all VPS plans:[/SIZE] [LIST] [*]POP3 Accounts [*]Forwarders [*]Auto-Responders [*]Mailing Lists [*]Mail Blocking [*]Sub-Domains [*]Email Aliases [*]FTP Accounts [*]MySQL Databases [*]CGI, Perl, PHP, Java [*]MS Frontpage™ Extensions [*]Cron Jobs [*]Password Protected Files [*]Secure Server Includes (SSI) [*]WAP/WML/Wireless [*]Real Audio/Video [*]Shopping Cart [*]Custom Error Pages [*]SMTP Mail Server [*]SSH Shell Access [*]Anonymous FTP [*]MX Record Changes [*]Web Browser Control Panel [*]Web Based Email Access [*]PhpMyAdmin Support [*]Web Based Statistics [*]CGI Chat Room [/LIST] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.102.219.6 (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Consumer end storage

Consumer end storage: The first sentence is making a bold statement.This without a reference holds very less significance.Kapoorruchit (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Larry Ellson

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 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think paragraph 3 should be moved to be the opening paragraph

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

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 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Merge from cloud computing architecture

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

Questioning whether Cloud is an appropriate separate term

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 (talk • contribs) 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 _in^out 08:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Getting the definition in the introduction section right

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 _in^out 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 _in^out 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links

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:

• Cloud Computing and Emerging IT Platforms: Vision, Hype, and Reality for Delivering Computing as the 5th Utility. Rajkumar Buyya, Chee Shin Yeo, Srikumar Venugopal, James Broberg, and Ivona Brandic. Future Generation Computer Systems, Volume 25, Number 6, Pages: 599-616, ISSN: 0167-739X, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 2009.

• The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing. Peter Mell and Timothy Grance, NIST Special Publication 800-145 (September 2011). National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
• Guidelines on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud Computing. Wayne Jansen and Timothy Grance, NIST Special Publication 800-144 (December 2011). National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
• Cloud Computing – Benefits, risks and recommendation for information security. Daniele Cattedu and Giles Hobben, European Network and Information Security Agency 2009.
• Fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud. European Parliament – Directorate-General for Internal Policies. 2012
• Cloud Computing: What are the Security Implications?: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, October 6, 2011
• PCI Compliant E-Commerce In The Cloud Hosting E-Commerce Based on Cloud Computing
• Cloud and Datacenter Solution Hub on Microsoft TechNet
• Forbes article: security issues arising from Snowden situation
• DMOZ: Cloud Computing Category

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 _in^out 08:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one more potential source:

• Software-Defined Cloud Computing: Architectural Elements and Open Challenges

Jojalozzo 23:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Earlier ref

This article refers to the cloud in 1993, referring to earlier events. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

I believe the definition of Cloud Computing shouldn't mention neither computer nor storage as the provided resources, nontheless the term itself contains one of the terms (computing). Cloud Computing, as noted in other areas in this same article, is more than just infrastructure. Therefore, I'm proposing to mention the **type** of "things" instead of the name of the "things" being provided. For example:

Cloud computing is computing in which large groups of remote servers are networked to allow for online access to distributed services and/or resources. Clouds can be classified as public, private or hybrid.[1]

As another reference to support this change, we can take a look at what some of the current cloud services - or softwares - provide. AWS, OpenStack, Rackspace (OpenStack based), Eucaliptus all provide more than just computing and storage. Flaper87 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the section "Security, privacy and trust" is not clear

I think the section "Security, privacy and trust" is not clear. That section should point to the issues explained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing_issues Currently, the page looks too positive to Cloud computing because the negative aspects of cloud computing are not explained well and the Neutral Point of View is affected.

I also have this suggestion: The difference should be made between Customer Cloud and Enterprise Cloud because when the customers (I mean normal persons) use the cloud they don't really understand the issues involved, but when the companies use the cloud they have lawyers that read the contracts. Normal persons are not really going to read 11 pages, people just click "Accept" without reading and the legal issues explained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing_issues (like ownership of the data) have not been resolved.

Abcdudtc (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Cloud

I think the mention of:

The criticisms about it are mainly focused on its social implications

is too early in the article (somewhat abrupt), not very accurate, and the language can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.90.127 (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And mine, also

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

It may be fine for you, but consider the audience

Please don't be "technologist", one person's inane is another person's incomprehensible. :)

Can't we just speak plain English? That introduction is not suitable for, say, children who just want to know what it means. How about opening with something like: "Cloud computing is a way of running software over the internet." Then go on to be just as technical as you like. Aelfgifu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Turnkey systems and distributed databases

I have been a programmer for 40 years. Young people tend to be unfamiliar with older technology. As best as I understand Cloud Computing, there are two types. One type is an evolution of Turnkey Systems and the other is a Distributed Database made available over the internet. I think that the database-only form of a cloud should be mentioned and contrasted with Distributed Databases. IBM was a pioneer in Distributed Database technology but I assume that is relevant to Distributed Databases so a link to Distributed Databases should be sufficient. Since the article mentions RJE, which is much less relevant than Turnkey Systems, Turnkey Systems sure should be mentioned. I think Turnkey Systems are also more relevant to Cloud Computing than timesharing systems. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Origins of "Cloud"

The cloud goes back farther than this article suggested by rAJNI KANTH

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)]

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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. 2602:306:38C1:64D0:11D4:68ED:C92B:5FBD (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Cloud" isn't perhaps the most descriptive term, but it is the WP:COMMONNAME and so we're stuck with it. It's better than "Amazon Web Services" at least, where "web services" already have a very clear definition as a remote API, quite distinct from most of what they provide.

As to "[W]hose details are not further inspected in a given context.", that refers to the cloud practice of buying "a yard of computing power" without any knowledge of how this is to be provided. Is the size of computing effort requested to be supplied by a thin virtualised slice of a very big server? Or a dedicated small blade server? You can have good details of what you need to know (where it appears in IP space, how much size or power it offers, QoS reliability metrics) but you don't get to see more than this. Physically where it is is hidden. The hardware architecture is hidden. For Amazon Glacier, no-one (outside AWS) even knows what it's built out of. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2016

The document referenced in citation #2 has been moved. Please update it to http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf and please edit that reference additionally to include the bibliographic information from the report: Peter Mell and Timothy Grance, "NIST Definition of Cloud Computing," National Institute of Standards and Technology: U.S. Department of Commerce, Special publication 800-145, September 2011.

Sprinksvherself (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

reference updated. However the old URL also still works. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

I'd like to add the following:

Under "Similar concepts", add the following line about cloud sandboxes with a link to the "Sandbox (Cloud)" wiki page:

"Cloud sandbox—A live, isolated computer environment in which a program, code or file can run without affecting the application in which it runs."

verifiable sources:

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/sandbox

http://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/devops-hybrid-cloud-sandboxes/413832201

Thank you for considering this request.

Sandboxing4u (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Done VarunFEB2003 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

Two words need to be separated and a "to" added between them in the second paragraph from the top. "organizationsfocus" needs to be changed to "organizations to focus"

This is in the sentence "As well, it enables organizationsfocus on their core businesses instead of spending time and money on computer infrastructure."

I remember when these pages weren't protected like this and I could have just made the simple change like this myself. Boy has Wikipedia changed since 2000 when I was working at AOL and playing around with it. Now it's just like any other encyclopedia ... you have to send in recommendations to the "editor". - Loftlon

Advocates claim that cloud computing allows companies to avoid upfront infrastructure costs (e.g., purchasing <a class="mw-disambig" title="Server" href="/wiki/Server">servers</a> ). As well, it enables organizationsfocus on their core businesses instead of spending time and money on computer infrastructure. Proponents also claim that cloud computing allows enterprises to get their applications up and running faster, with improved manageability and less maintenance, and enables Information Technology (IT) teams to more rapidly adjust resources to meet fluctuating and unpredictable business demand.

Loftlon (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

• "What is Cloud Computing?". Amazon Web Services. 2013-03-19. Retrieved 2013-03-20.

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) mfgdjo ndjsnfj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.142.133.70 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

Propose this line be changed due to grammatical error: Performance is monitored by IT experts from the service provide, and consistent and loosely coupled architectures are constructed using web services as the system interface.

New line reads as follows: Performance is monitored by IT experts from the service provider, and consistent and loosely coupled architectures are constructed using web services as the system interface.

Note the verb "provide" has been changed to the noun "provider."

Antidelusive (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2016

IoT as a Service The emerging business perspectives coming from Internet of Things (IoT) are pushing private, public, and hybrid Cloud providers to integrate their system with embedded and mobile devices (including sensors and actuators) in order to provide together with the traditional Infrastructure, Platform and Software as a Services (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) even a new type of service model, that is called \textit{IoT as a Service} (IoTaaS).

References

Acelesti (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I adjusted it a bit to be more easily readable for someone who hasn't taken a course in this stuff, so that the buzzword density of the article doesn't holistically increase into a state of paradigm shift.  Done --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016

Proposed nomenclature correction: "economics of scale" becomes "economies of scale"

In economics the concept is known as "economies of scale" not "economics of scale."

Current sentence: Cloud computing is cheaper because of economics of scale, and like any outsourced task, you tend to get what you get.

Proposed sentence: Cloud computing is cheaper because of economies of scale, and like any outsourced task, you tend to get what you get.

Antidelusive (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You are asking a change in a person's own quotation. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

Move the "only" from here:

"an organization only pays for extra compute resources when"

...to here:

"an organization pays for extra compute resources only when"

MarciaRieferJohnston (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016

Request you to add about Fedrated Cloud File System. Below is data can be used. FedFS (Federated File System Framework), a system that offers a distributed and federated cloud storage. Its benefits include uniform namespace and multi-protocol access to the data.

Calsoftinc (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are a couple of problems with this request. "Cloud computing" is a vast topic, larger even than "cloud storage". Accordingly space in this top-level article is valuable and anything added to it needs to be of substantial significance, supported by reliable sources. A commercial product, rather than a broad concept, has an uphill struggle to demonstrate this. It will need independent sources to attest to its importance, not just a self-published source from its own developers. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

References

2000s section; Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2017

Please add the below section to the end of the 2000's section. Google is not mentioned as a provider in this category, so I wanted to add this in (as IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and Amazon are):

Google Cloud released their PaaS service Google App Engine in preview in April of 2008. In May of 2012, Google Compute Engine was released in preview before being rolled out into General Availability in December of 2013.

--Top19 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done TheDragonFire (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Security Instances.

There is/are no statements here accorded the extreme open ended none security Cloud servers are. For legal relationships, they are nothing but an attempt to monopolize via acceptable ' dictatorial ' relationships (a standard beaurocratic subsidian mistake similar to the Bradley Tank debacle), with absolutely no intent to retain liability and responsibility. Defacto, the overal purpose would be to cause plausible deniability and diffuse liability and responsibility even further and directly onto a discardable third party element.

' Cloud ' computing, is another nomer for ' distributed node computing', one of the terms used to describe the use of Internet in cases of a national disaster (Dod specs), where each node could take up the load for a node that fell out.

Without doubt, the military and CLOSED industrial park applications are there, however, the commercial and PRIVATE enterprise applications are NOT there (Unless you definitely want a military Indian Microsoft Guru to pass personal information via a Cloud Server to his continental Indian ' mates ' of the potencial whereabouts of any remaining 2008 Sri Lankan Tamal Indian whom was not summarily executed. NO doubt a tactic that Northern Arabic Mix Indians would highly prefer).

Windows 10 & the use of Cloud servers have decremented PRIVATE personal security measurements exponencially, leaving most any open to beaurocracies with not much in mind but ' total domination ' and obliteration of all, except their own ' In ' Groups.

I would be off the opinion that these days, Heil Hitler comes in the form of Microsoft & Cloud Servers, and include quote IT professionals with absolutely no savor for much of any life, including their own, the overal instances of NONE security clearly denoting a suicidal measure.

Question here: How many times are individuals bribed (or wannabe a favoured), by removing commentaries that provide directivity that clearly state that there are con & frauds in place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.226.115 (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

As a former Tymshare employee ...

I feel that nothing deep can really be understood in the network and cloud computing technology and historically (1986) constrained UX evolution if one does not include the Tymshare contribution, its Tymnet public service as a trigger of the Telecommunications Deregulation and its impact on "multimatics pregnancy", the initial international packet switch services radical monopoly of its Tymnet multitechnology, and the notion of network extended services (missing layers six presentation and eight interapplications). Some more information on the Tymnet architecture and Keykos Tymshare operating system seem of the missing essence in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.128.155.140 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

On Demand

I don't find the term 'on demand' used in the first sentence to be a necessary feature of cloud computing. There are other models than on demand pricing such as Amazon Spot Instances, which use a set maximum price deferred model.

I believe that Microsoft's definition of cloud computing is more concise and accurate.

Simply put, cloud computing is the delivery of computing services – servers, storage, databases, networking, software, analytics and more – over the Internet (“the cloud”). Companies offering these computing services are called cloud providers and typically charge for cloud computing services based on usage, similar to how you’re billed for gas or electricity at home.

AlexeiBarnes (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cloud computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162543/https://www-304.ibm.com/connections/blogs/IBMSmarterSystems/date/201102?lang=en_us to https://www-304.ibm.com/connections/blogs/IBMSmarterSystems/date/201102?lang=en_us
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.enterprisecioforum.com/en/blogs/gabriellowy/value-data-platform-service-dpaas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

I was an established Wiki Editor for years, however, my email domain went away (while I was sitting in a cargo container in Iraq) and over the past month I have not been able to login into the ID, spfrazer, so I created a new account under, stevefrazer. I would be happy to return the spfrazer and delete the new account - I sent several emails into the "Wiki Helpdesk" - no response. Please help me reset the password for spfrazer. Thank you!

The following is too much information I understand (though the following is only 10% of what I have documented), however, there are hundreds of millions of records that can be produced - particularly from the cloud computing monitoring system I wrote in 1994. There are hundreds of people still alive who will confirm this history. Just need to know what you folks require. Regards...

CHANGE FROM:

While the term "cloud computing" was popularized with Amazon.com releasing its Elastic Compute Cloud product in 2006,[8] references to the phrase "cloud computing" appeared as early as 1996, with the first known mention in a Compaq internal document.[9]

TO:

While the term "cloud computing" was popularized with Amazon.com releasing its Elastic Compute Cloud product in 2006,[8] references to the phrase "cloud computing" appeared as early as 1994. By late 1993, the Distributed Systems Administrators of the Investment Products Organization of the Nationwide Insurance Enterprise had already adopted naming schemes for the existing 14 UNIX servers. They used oceans (Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, ...) for the larger servers and rivers (Nile, Amazon, Mississippi, Ohio, ...) for the smaller departmental servers. All of these physical servers were local to the downtown, Columbus, Ohio complex and its 2 data centers. However, the new wave of servers being developed were to be located in multiple data centers - many in other states. So Stephen Frazer, the new Systems Administrator and Analyst assigned this task, selected a naming scheme based on clouds (Nimbus, Cumulus, Cirrus, ...). He selected this naming scheme as his network diagrams being drafted in the first weeks of his employment used a "cloud-like" icon for the various projected geo-diverse locations and also because he had spent a decade serving as a co-pilot for his Father's (Lloyd Frazer) commercial flight service literally ... in the clouds [Lloyd Father was a noteworthy aircraft Pilot/Flight Instructor during WWII and flew passengers and cargo for 30+ years thereafter].

In 1994, Frazer, along with the Distributed Systems Team designed, built and began managing the "Cloud Computers" for Nationwide - including the largest HP-9000 in existence - all geo-diverse with real-time sync and fail-over.

Within a few months of being hired, Frazer was also asked to evaluate the new HP-Overview network monitoring system. The system was installed and configured with a great deal of help from HP, however, this early version was undependable. Since many of the Cloud Computers were coming on-line and transitioning into production and they were already processing tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars of financial flows per day, a dependable, robust monitoring system was essential. The HP-Overview system was put on-hold with an invite to bring it back once stable.

Frazer then designed and created a monitoring system writing over 10,000 lines of code in AWK/bash and std UNIX calls to proactively monitor all of the Mission Critical and Production servers. This included network availability, NFS mounts, disk space, central monitoring for CPU/Memory utilization, swap, network bandwidth, ... and the main purpose of this monitoring tool was to verify financial flows - tens of thousands of monitoring events of interest. In the financial processing world, flow events are sequential and Frazer's scripts verified that each step in every dependency progression was complete before beginning the next (which would create havoc if the previous had not completed properly). This monitoring system created log entries and sent out pro-active telephony pages to the financial support team members and the scripts used the following phrases (typically 2,000-5,000 text pages were sent per day to over 200 Staff and Consultants from a bank of several analog modems):

   "xyz file transfer to the cloud complete: datestamp"

   "backup of /dsk/xyz to cloud computer xyz complete"

   "cloud computer cirrus at 95% in /tmp"

   "cloud computer network interface at 80% capacity" (Frazer designed the cloud computers with dedicated LAN and WAN interfaces - some with as many as 16 network ports for the best granularity for security and capacity)

   "cloud computing T3 interface at 98%"  (this was a common issue and Frazer's code would literally cycle in a time-waster in the form of UNIX sleep commands as packet ACK's in a fully saturated network pipe would sometimes fail within the allotted time window which would potentially result in data transfer errors)

Over the next 2 years (1995-1996), security for cloud computing became an extremely important focus. Frazer certified with 2 IT Security training programs, including firewall design and played a major role on the Nationwide Firewall Design Team. Frazer later served as the Chief Architect of the first in-house International Firewall for AEP (then Fortune 38 in 1999) and the Chief Architect of the first financial transaction system on the open public Internet which eliminated the FDIC and SEC legislative requirements for the use of private telecom circuits (AT&T/Fortune 8 in 2000) and introduced the concept of Cloud Computing into both companies.

In late 1995, Nationwide purchased thousands of desktop computers from Gateway Computer (likely why they had records referencing "Cloud Computing" in 1996). Gateway Staff members were in Nationwide offices for 3 months as part of the sales, purchase and install contract. Frazer met with several of the execs and techs of the company and discussed the geo-diverse monitoring and Cloud Computing systems. These discussions included the fact that Gateway was about to launch a new line of server products to keep up with Dell. In 1995 the Nationwide Distributed Team had embraced the Netscape array of products and were helping to setup the Netscape Client software on the new desktop "Cow Computers" [so nick-named due to the graphics on their shipping boxes] to interface with Nationwide's then latest array of new "Cloud Computers" servers - which were running the Netscape Server Systems. Two of the Gateway servers were later received and tested by Nationwide for the Gateway Server evaluation project, code named "Cows in the Clouds".

Through-out 1994-1996, Frazer and the other Nationwide IPO UNIX Systems Administrators - ultimately 12 Staff, the 4 Network Administrators and 6 Database Administrators were being certified - often in multiple sub-technologies and versions so multiple training sessions with Dec, Sun, IBM, HP, Cisco, Oracle, Sybase and list of other tech savvy companies. Most of these firms' top-level training centers were in their corporate headquarters and when the representatives of a Fortune 100 client appeared, it was common for executive management of these tech firms to visit and welcome the students at some point during the training session. Everyone was interested in this concept of Geo-diverse Cloud Computing and the concepts of load balancing and high availability fail-over were often discussed. The phrases, "Cloud Computing" and "Cloud Computers" became common vocabulary in the industry. When Frazer was training at the DEC Corporate Headquarters in Maynard, MA, in 1995, he took the DEC helicopter flight back to Boston International Airport sitting beside a Training Instructor in DEC's program. Over backseat private channel mics with headsets both laughed about discussing "cloud computing while literally in the clouds". Stevefrazer (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That is, please provide reliablesecondary sources. This is a very large amount of text with zero references and we cannot accept your personal testimony. Please also ensure you have read the Conflict of Interest policy. This is an important policy that you agreed to follow when you created your account, so I would like to make sure you are aware of it. This edit request is the type of request that the policy encourages, so thank you for doing that. We still, however, require the type of sourcing linked above. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

History

Pending to add Alibaba Cloud to history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.102.199 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of verb “claim”

I feel that the use of the phrase “Proponents also claim”, and the use of the verb ‘claim’ therein, could be perceived as a violation of impartial account, discrediting the “claim” that follow’s. Perhaps this should be changed to ‘Proponents also say’? LiberalPointofView (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

an information technology (IT) paradigm that enables ubiquitous access to shared pools of configurable system resources and higher-level services that can be rapidly provisioned with minimal management effort

There must be a jargon-free way of describing the cloud. So many of these words go undefined and not even linked to other WP pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.229.25 (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

Cloudlab306 (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

The world’s first cloud computing patent was submitted on December 24, 1999 by Hardy F. Schloer and granted by the UK and German patent offices can be found on the European Patent Register and at Google Patents.

Schloer termed his system a “one page web” and explains the “method and device for presenting data to a user (in what has become known as “the cloud“). It is complete with:

 multiple user applications  Cloud storage  Multiple identification providers  Back-end servers – including plug-in applications  Multiple tiers of servers capable of handling different end-user devices via the internet  Built-in security features

Schloer is the inventor and holder of many Information Technology (IT) related patents. CitizenHuman (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As an anonymous student project, ref #1 is not a reliable source. Refs #2 and #3 are only primary sources which cannot be analyzed in Wikipedia's voice and need a secondary expert source (book, journal, etc.) doing the analysis. Also, ref #1 does not verify "the first patent" but mentions only "an early implementation". Please note, that all parts of an edit request should be sourced to published independent sources (usually secondary sources to avoid original research). GermanJoe (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018

Please change
FROM

Since 2000, cloud computing has come into existence.

TO

Since 2000 cloud computing has come into existence, because in the last days of 1999 a patent was filed for a "one page web" by Hardy Schloer, making it the first known Cloud computing implementation . The patent was put to use in England and Germany and Mr. Schloer explained the technology as a “method and device for presenting data to a user" consisting of:

• Multiple user applications
• Cloud storage
• Multiple identification providers
• Back-end servers – including plug-in applications
• Multiple tiers of servers capable of handling different end-user devices via the internet
• Built-in security features CitizenHuman (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In 1999, on December 24, the first known Cloud computing implementation was submitted for patent protection and put to use by Hardy Schloer in England and Germany. Mr. Schloer termed the system a “one page web” and explains the “method and device for presenting data to a user (in what has become known as “the cloud”). It is complete with: • Multiple user applications • Cloud storage • Multiple identification providers • Back-end servers – including plug-in applications • Multiple tiers of servers capable of handling different end-user devices via the internet • Built-in security features CitizenHuman (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

I would like to enhance the block Platform as a Service, adding information about one more model of PaaS:

CHANGE FROM:

Generally, public cloud service providers like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Oracle, Microsoft and Google own and operate the infrastructure at their data center and access is generally via the Internet. AWS, Oracle, Microsoft, and Google also offer direct connect services called "AWS Direct Connect", "Oracle FastConnect", "Azure ExpressRoute", and "Cloud Interconnect" respectively, such connections require customers to purchase or lease a private connection to a peering point offered by the cloud provider.[40][87]

TO:

Generally, public cloud service providers like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Oracle, Microsoft and Google own and operate the infrastructure at their data center and access is generally via the Internet. AWS, Oracle, Microsoft, and Google also offer direct connect services called "AWS Direct Connect", "Oracle FastConnect", "Azure ExpressRoute", and "Cloud Interconnect" respectively, such connections require customers to purchase or lease a private connection to a peering point offered by the cloud provider. One more model is when PaaS provides its services via hosting partners and their local data centers, like Jelastic PaaS Mariia Hepalova (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Virtual Data Center

A virtual data center is a pool or collection of cloud infrastructure resources specifically designed for enterprise business needs. The basic resources are the processor (CPU), memory (RAM), storage (disk space) and networking (bandwidth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit10000 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

This Page is supposed to be about Cloud Computing and not Amazon Cloud (EC2). Cloud Computing has been around since the 90s and Private Clouds have been built since mid 2000s Even now we have different Cloud models, Private Cloud, Public Cloud (Amazon, Azure and GCP) and Hybrid Cloud.

Please remove references to Amazon EC2 with generic cloud computing concepts. This incorrectly equates Amazon EC2 as Cloud while excluding private cloud and other cloud computing concepts.

P.S. Amazon EC2 although being the most mature public cloud implementation out of GCP, Azure and AWS. is still immature and years behind private cloud or an enterprise capabilities. Xarcity (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: You will have to be more specific and include specific sources for more complicated changes, but I have adjusted the lede per your suggestion. The lede is a summary of the body, but the body doesn't seem like it emphasizes Amazon or EC2 as fundamentally and historically important enough that it needs to be highlighted in this way. The first mention of Amazon in the body is cited to a press release, which suggests WP:OR. None of the three sources in the lede, from my assessment, emphasize Amazon in this way either. Grayfell (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

First usage of the concept

I have reverted the addition of an alleged first introduction of this concept by Hardy F. Schloer. True or not, this is a strong extraordinary claim and needs sourcing by an acknowledged expert in a reliable mainstream publication who thoroughly analyzes this claim in context. Primary sources like patents are insufficient for such a strong claim, as are student projects or mere conference papers with a passing mention that have been published on a NGO website and republished in a minor journal (that is apparently connected to the NGO and focusses on mere republications of such conference papers). The authors' expertise and academic credentials in the mentioned school are also unclear - again such a strong claim should be made by an acknowledged reputed expert. Wikipedia is no venue to popularize new ideas and theories from research scholars and students with insufficient coverage in academic expert sources. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree; this clearly shouldn't be in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

This includes data caps, which are placed on cloud users by the cloud vendor allocating certain amount of bandwidth for each customer and are often shared among other cloud users.[120]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that this may be a WP:SELFCITE. It may be acceptable, but it should be checked for conflict of interest. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Clarity and neutrality

Daveburstein (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC) I rewrote the first few paragraphs to make them more understandable to a non-technical user. I also removed or reworked what I considered non-neutral. It would be good to do similar for the whole article. Dave

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

117.211.131.5 (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: blank edit request. Roadguy2 (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit History

Hello,

I am requesting to update the history section and add a paragraph about the BSCW system being the first system that you would call "cloud" today. It was developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology and published in 1995. There is a article about it on their page that can be found at https://www.fit.fraunhofer.de/en/fb/cscw/projects/bscw_20-Jahre.html. It is also included at the german Cloud Computing Wikipedia page. I think it would be a good addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbiTeam (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Characteristics

Hello,

the chapter "Characteristics" is in my opinion too single sided in favour of cloud providers. There's no real con argument. Some examples: latency is in case of cloud computing higher than for "local" processing. Billing is unreproducible for the user as you have to trust your cloud provider that it does it correctly. Cloud servers are usually overcommitted meaning that worst case the cloud provider can't give your application more capacity as there's none. (DDoS-) Attacks on cloud providers threaten cloud users businesses as the "internal" team of cloud users can't do anything when they depend on a connection to the cloud provider.

--Leuchuk (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Leuchuk: - Good point. It is rather one-sided. There are some of the negatives discussed in the Limitations and disadvantages section, but they are not covered in any depth. If someone did have the time to find some reliable sources and add some critique of cloud computing, that could be a useful contribution to the article. (I don't see having the time myself, but maybe I will sometime in the future if no one else does it first.) - Dyork (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

History: Removal of the previous mention to "NASA's OpenNebula" for lack of references, repaced by Nebula

Hello,

OpenNebula was listed as NASA's project, which seems to be wrong: the linked page, OpenNebula, had nothing to do with NASA, but with a Spanish university spinoff (OpenNebula Systems).

There's no evidence of NASA having anything to do with OpenNebula, and there are no references to OpenNebula in the reference paper, "The RESERVOIR Model and Architecture for Open Federated Cloud Computing", which is publicly available at https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.330.3880&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Indeed, the right reference seems to be Nebula: https://www.nasa.gov/open/nebula.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Covelus (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

There has been some discussion about this article's quality assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Assessment_requests. The article is currently rated B-class. I don't think it has quite earned that yet. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

recent edits

Kms89 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)I have made changes to the term cloud computing. I've gone into more detail about the benefits of cloud computing. I also went into more depth about the different types of cloud computing. I added the "Country Ranking in Cloud Computing" section. This section discusses BSA's country rankings in cloud computing growth capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kms89 (talk • contribs)

You've been overwriting the lead section with an extremely close paraphrase of the IBM source. (See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing) That is not an improvement. - MrOllie (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

cloud computing update

Kms89 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Kms89 I have made changes to the term cloud computing. I've gone into more detail about the benefits of cloud computing. I also went into more depth about the different types of cloud computing.

@Kms89: I've reverted these changes for several reasons:

• your changes were unsourced (i.e. there is no reliable source to indicate that your definition or list of benefits are widely accepted)
• your tone was too informal.

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

cloud computing update

Kms89 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Kms89 Added more detail about cloud computing benefits, different types of cloud computing, and added country ranking in cloud computing growth.

Your second set of changes was not significantly different from your first. Before trying to introduced these changes again, please discuss the matter here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Crap article

I cannot read this crap because it disgusts my senses. 62.165.157.33 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ungrammatical and Uninterpretable Language, Incoherent Scope/Purpose, Full of Misinformation

Just as an example:

“By 2019, Linux was the most widely used operating system, including in Microsoft's offerings and is thus described as dominant.”

What does this even mean? Most widely used in what sense (there’s no context to clarify)? What does it mean for it to be described as dominant, and why does that matter (“described as xyz” especially when xyz is subjective, shouldn’t be used in a Wikipedia article unless describing a specific person’s option, identified as such).

I’m sure this article is full of this kind of thing; I mean, the fact that most cloud computing would have to be Linux-based by default and pretty much always has been is either obvious to the reader or requires a more detailed explanation, depending on their level of technological literacy. I can’t do so due to a currently hectic schedule but this article needs a major overhaul at least and probably a complete rewrite – not just because of quality issues, but also because it’s an increasingly mainstream topic that isn’t well understood by the average person and it should therefore be a high priority for Wikipedia to have a clear, accurate, accessible, and fully sourced article on the topic.

Andyharbor (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Stated above, "the fact that most cloud computing would have to be Linux-based by default and pretty much always has been is either obvious to the reader or requires a more detailed explanation, depending on their level of technological literacy." Setting aside for the moment your valid "huh?" about dominance &c, pretty much any statement about Linux would be unobvious to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. I do agree that the article is filled with jargon and [insert your post title here], and does not present cloud computing in a way that even an above-average person can understand. I am working on a project that involves cloud computing and when I finish it, I may try to at least clean up some of the language a bit. Denisecaruso (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)