Template talk:Cloud computing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposal: remove "standards" category

I propose we remove bogus "cloud standards" layer because at this point the cloud is so loosely defined we can't have a real conversation yet about which protocols are closely related enough to be included here. A few examples of items listed which don't really make sense:

• Atom: this a web standard like many others but it's not closely enough related to cloud to be here...
• XMPP: fail to see why this Internet protocol is closely related to "cloud" any more than a zillion other protocols
• BitTorrent: what makes this P2P protocol a cloud standard in any way?

Wtsao (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok no contention from me on this point - I've removed the category for now pending development of some cloud-specific standards like OCCI, vCloud, OASIS' ID TC, CloudAudit, etc. -- samj _in^out 19:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: remove SaaS "cloud applications" category

SaaS applications don't belong in a cloud computing template. Sure, the SaaS applications described may be implemented using cloud computing technologies but so are countless others. Is hotmail also cloud computing? Where do we draw the line on what to include before "cloud computing" becomes an all-encompassing meaningless term? Wtsao (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but SaaS is, without doubt, a key part of cloud computing - you've got a WP:SNOWball's chance in hell of proving otherwise. -- samj _in^out 19:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is anything on the Internet not a part of cloud computing? Maybe it would be easier to discuss what cloud computing isn't than what it is? Anyhow, even if I agree with you, we can include SaaS as a single entry in technologies rather than as a category which lists specific SaaS offerings such as those provided by your employer. Wtsao (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

SaaS is a major part of cloud computing and one of the three well accepted layers. If anything I'd suggest fleshing this layer out with good examples of cloud computing services - of which Google Apps happens to be one - Microsoft, Amazon and Salesforce are obvious ones too. -- samj _in^out 10:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Cloud computing absolutely includes both B2B applications (Salesforce, Intacct, NetSuite), and B2C applications (Webex, GoToMyPC, Mint.com). I think of SaaS as one of the most mature layers within the Cloud Computing umbrella. -- DanielDruker —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

Proposal: Add "computer network" to technologies

A previous edit which added computer network to technologies [1] was unfortunately bulk-reverted along with all of my other edits by SamJohnston.

This seems to me like a no-brainer. Computer networks are one of the key technologies which enable the cloud. Wtsao (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You were already blocked for these edits so declaring it a kangaroo court and inflammatory garbage before taking cheap shots like this is no way to hang on to your editing privileges. I've added Internet as this is the "key technology which enables the cloud" - computer networking in general applies to basically all computing today. -- samj _in^out 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry was this WP:PA a response to my proposal? Wtsao (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Networking is a tricky one here; there's the general global-data-network the telcos are rolling out so that your smart phone gets a certain #of MB per month, then there's the datacentre-side of the problem (I know, some people don't see datacentres as mandatory), where you worry about 1-10 gigabit within the facility (or infinband, etc, and various in-city protocols like Metro Ethernet, whatever gets used long-haul. SteveLoughran (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Amazon entries

There's a lot of Amazon stuff around the template (s3, EC2, VPC, Mturk, ... etc). Nobody else gets all their portfolio stuck in everywhere -look at MS Azure, for example. I think we should just have one amazon link - to Amazon Web Services. Question is, where to put it? SteveLoughran (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- samj _in^out 09:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of PaaS examples

IMO, Zoho and Wolf Frameworks are PaaS examples that are illustrative of a wider variety of PaaS - application PaaS- in addition to the current examples in the template. With reference to notability, I have verified the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.17.65 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

How have you verified "notability" especially given the comments on both web pages saying they are near advertisements. I would certainly pull Wolf, while Zoho is what -a word processor hosted on someone else's infrastructure? If that was the case most web apps written in the past year would go in this template? Also, silence doesn't mean approval, some of us have been away for a week. There are discussion topics on here going past months. Reverting the links until we have approval from more of the page maintainers. I'm sorry to have to do this, but it's the only way to keep the template under control. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

While reverting I see that I reverted back an entry for Wolf that was added by 122.167.38.83, something not far IPv4-wise from the most recent contributor, again, something that I deemed non-notable. It'd be good to get input from other maintainers of this site so I don't appear to the sole controller of what goes in/out here. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember, the point of the template is more to give users an understanding of how cloud computing is segmented, not to advertise products. That is, anything included should be even more notable than wikipedia's usual criteria for inclusion. -- samj _in^out 21:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Operating Systems

I'm a bit confused about what the OS category is for. It currently lists smartphone operating systems, which are just that: OS's for phones and other embeddable devices. Yes, they (and esp Android and WebOS) do have lots of bindings to internet hosted services, but they are still phone operating systems. Google Chrome is the only cloud-only client OS that I'm aware of. As far as "datacenter OS" goes, that's not covered at all: Azure and AWS are the closest to public examples; whatever GAE runs on is also one, though it's not directly visible.

Should we just remove the OS area and add google chrome in the list of clients? SteveLoughran (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

From the article: "A cloud client consists of computer hardware and/or computer software that relies on cloud computing for application delivery and that is in essence useless without it. Examples include some computers, phones and other devices, operating systems, and browsers". Android, iOS and WP7 I would say make the cut (almost all apps and even many core services are dependent on cloud services). Linux does not. -- samj _in^out 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

LogicWorks : notability?

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

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

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

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

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

Logicworks was deleted. -- samj _in^out 20:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding cloud database under technologies

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

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

clean up

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

Small number

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

Now that the industry has grown significantly since I created the template, it's getting fairly bloated (it's always been a bit of a WP:COATRACK). I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense for us to move to generic articles rather than specific products & services. It would already be useful to clear out things that aren't good examples of cloud computing (e.g. libvirt), as the purpose of the template is to use good examples to demonstrate what cloud computing is, not use heavily trafficked pages to direct visitors to unknown projects. -- samj _in^out 07:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

AliCloud

AliCloud (or Aliyun) is a rising cloud computing platform in China now, but it does not have separate page here on Wikipedia (currently redirected to Alibaba Group). Should I add it in anyways? Zamaster4536 (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)