Template talk:Cloud computing/Archive 2

src: blogs.vmware.com

Video Template talk:Cloud computing/Archive 2

Tambahkan Amazon Web Services

Someone should add Amazon Web Services to the right... 81.236.171.23 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Cloud computing/Archive 2

Adobe

How about including an online image editing app Acrobat.com and Photoshop (can not remember the real name now)? - Kozuch (talk) 12:52, September 14, 2008 (UTC)

You know, after thinking about your question, I wonder if all the middleware software is considered part of the Cloud Computing Model, because they can be hosted by anyone. (References: I connect this with Microsoft Office Live Workspace, I think they are P2P forms) - -? Anyone help me on this? My guess is that Acrobat.com is not really related to Cloud Computing, because they are hosted like iTunes, Zune, and other online market types like. If they use the SOA data infrastructure then I think it will be considered Cloud Computing, because the SOA itself is built from many series of network cloud.

• See this image for reference
• Original Locations of Fetch

--Ramu50 (talk) 16:41, September 29, 2008 (UTC)

What is PC2Mobile, Net2Mobile, and Cloud Computing Web2Mobile? I'm not sure if this is just an actual concept or service, as many Smartphones seem to adopt the feature it seems to be a very lightweight software like short messaging service. Some websites even suggest that Text Messages to Mobile on PC Instant Messaging is PC2Mobile. See here for PC2Mobile explanation - Ramu50 (talk) 21:54, October 23, 2008 (UTC)

note

???

• SEO (Web-Crawlers)

ClouAV

---

So I'm just wondering, in the future when cloud computing becomes technical like Parallel Computing, do you want this template to look like Template: Parallel computing as a guiding topic or do you want to save this, because other articles simply refer to it like used Browswer template in this article Fennec (browser) Ã,? --Ramu50 (talk) 03:55, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

src: www.computerrepairnewyorkcity.info

Relevance

I'm not sure Facebook or Android has to do with cloud computing... Needed IMHO cleaning.-- Kozuch (talk) 10:15, August 14, 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Facebook, apps are not running in the cloud. Sure, they are internet applications but they are run by developers. --TheSeer (Talk? Contribs) 06:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it works for me. - samj _in ^out 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

Group Proposal: Algorithm

I propose a new group, an algorithm. Distributed Hash Tables, MapReduce, Table Column PageRank are examples of city-scale algorithms worth mentioning. By connecting to the algorithm, we can stop people who attach to links to any DHT implementation, MapReduce, etc. SteveLoughran (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. LirazSiri (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that actually sounds pretty reasonable (but I want to see the list first). - samj _in ^out 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

src: 1.bp.blogspot.com

Summary of consensus

Because there seems to be a dispute over what the consensus about the various problems regarding my template makes the summary.

Summary of discussion in "template destination" and "what happens in "section

• SamJohnston suggests that the purpose of the template is to describe the taxonomy for cloud computing articles.
• The LirazSiri Object, proposes that templates serve to refer other articles based on the utility/usefulness to the reader of the many articles that attached the template.
• SteveLoughran suggests putting articles by notation.
• Wtsao objects to SamJohnston's taxonomic proposal and summarizes: "Templates are not meant to be a table of contents for articles and there is no consensus on a true taxonomy for cloud computing We must strive to maximize usability in the encyclopedic sense."

Consensus : References to important articles related to cloud computing on the basis of maximizing encyclopedic utility. No template to promote taxonomic or layering schemes. (Talk) 03:11, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Summary "proposal: remove silly graph"

• SamJohnston who is the author of the picture thinks that he should remain "as a placeholder".
• LirazSiri Object for "not contributing anything"
• Wtsao agrees: "no meaningful information is conveyed in the picture, just a distraction"

Consensus : Delete Wtsao image (talk) 03:15, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Summary "Proposal: delete Server"

• SamJohnston: considers server category appropriate because "Like it or not, this template is attached to cloud computing articles to illustrate the various layers."
• LirazSiri: delete server category. Thinking it should be removed.
• SteveLoughran: agrees with LirazSiri removal and considers the server to be part of the data center in the technology section.

Consensus : Delete server category. Wtsao (talk) 03:20, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

bad behavior by SamJohnston

To anyone who please, I have warned SamJohnston of his behavior:

1. returns all my changes in bulk - worth of hours of editing
2. ignoring the discussion
3. make a hypocritical charge on my talk page

All while having a major COI. I hope the warning is enough. Wtsao (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You said " You have a clear COI related to cloud computing articles. I suggest you stay away from them. ". It's not just uncivilized - not at all the way WP works: COI. Invasive changes such as removing most article content requires a consensus that you do not even try to get. - samj _in ^out 10:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And then you are blocked... when you come back we can discuss any changes you suggest. - samj _in ^out 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's easy for experienced editors like yourself to manipulate the power with false accusations and alphabetic soup waving. Do not worry I spend my time blocked reading in Wikipedia policy so as not to give WP: ATTORNEY like your own reasons. We will play this with the book. Wtsao (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Related discussions can be found on "Who has cloud computing cloud articles?" the part I made: [1] Wtsao (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Destination Template

I just deleted some entries that can not be recorded in the template. Everything that comes into the template appears on multiple pages, so we need to be more strict about what's going on here than others.

• Things should be discussed here before being added, especially the entire new group
• Only very important examples to enter.
• Incoming items without discussion should be drawn and discussed, especially if there are signs of a CoI problem.

Mind? SteveLoughran (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is to help people understand what each layer/does, not to advertise solutions. Examples must be household names and there may be only a few (5-10) in each layer. For starters, you can tear anything without its own Wikipedian article, and even then check to see if the article should not be pushed or shipped. - samj _in ^out 20:42, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the goal is to provide the reader with a quick overview of the various aspects closely related to cloud computing plus more interesting links. Agree with Steve that new groups should be discussed first and we should include only the most important in each category rather than the full list of any vendor under the sun. Currently some parts are too bloated with less prominent examples. Disagree with Sam that we should try to punish new entries we do not like with AfD or for removal. It's too aggressive and violates WP: AGF. Also likely to encourage unnecessary hostility between editors. Let's keep editorial control in-band. LirazSiri (talk) 08:05, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

How do you suppose the article is found for AfD if it is not injected into someone else's caring article (like this)? I do not have any obligation to file an AFD even if I happen to be my fat finger to patent the bullshit, but if saying patent nonsense continues to be put under my nose then I have the right to question its suitability. - samj _in ^out 19:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SteveLoughran and LirazSiri. Templates are not meant to be a list of article content and there is no consensus on a true taxonomy for cloud computing. We must try to maximize usability in the encyclopedic sense. Wtsao (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but client side things also need coverage. I am actually most neutral in standard bits, especially XMPP, Atom and BitTorrent. I also think that server listings are a danger because this is the place that anyone who will sell server datacenter worth each server with 6-12 HDD provides a "cloud" server infrastructure. Just because Cisco has a PPT that says "we do cloud" does not mean their vision makes sense. SteveLoughran (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

SteveLoughran, can you articulate why you insist on including OpenStack? An initiative launched primarily by Cloud Rackspace (already registered) consisting of nothing more than the intention to try and create a standard API (based on what was discovered last week with a big surprise, the Rackspace API!). Duplifications are best and not really used by anyone anywhere. Will this template work to list the future aspirations of the major cloud computing players before they become a significant contribution to this sector? (Like OpenStack). Achieve TerminalVelocity (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I include it because end user support, various vendors, trying to do something open and standard. That said, the wiki article itself is pretty horrible, nothing more than a press release with wikilinks to the company. The article should be marked for improvement and perhaps we should postpone it in this template until it is upgraded. What do you think?

It's really cool that you've chosen to be a marketing vehicle for a particular company that you consider feasible. That's sarcasm, by the way. (George Reese, unlisted) 212.72.211.145 (talk) - Comment is dated no date added 03:22, October 7, 2010 (UTC).

George, alike. I really do not want to add a link to the product/group I work for, but instead ensure that the main technologies from effectively competitor entities get coverage -EC2, Azure, Google App Engine-because they have market share, they have momentum. What I do not want is any random startup that has cloud or other in their title or business plan to gain legitimacy by having references here. Once they're big, once they're popular, once they have market share, then we can discuss where to put them. That does not mean there is consensus among us, it's just that we are trying to stop everything that is filled with garbage. The purpose of the template is to give an idea of ​​the concept, not the complete product list. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Group Proposal: Tools

The silly cloud graph inside the template is about non-descriptive as it gets. What is the value of the word "cloud" covered by a squiggly line adding a template? LirazSiri (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The cloud image is a placeholder that I mean to replace when something better comes. So far no one has, but I have some ideas. - samj _in ^out 21:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I want to hear more about those ideas but in the meantime the pictures do not contribute anything. There is no placeholder in the template. Think about it this way: if I make that picture, would you still recommend to keep it there? LirazSiri (talk) 23:01, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It may not contribute much but is better than nothing. - samj _in ^out 19:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that no meaningful information is conveyed in the picture and that's just a distraction. Wtsao (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's always the place and no one has managed to come up with something better so I've deleted it until someone does it. - samj _in ^out 19:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

src: i808.photobucket.com

Proposal: delete client category

I propose to remove the client category. Client is not specific to cloud computing. Each network will have clients and similar servers. Wtsao (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a large and growing number of clients optimized for use with cloud computing services and categories are becoming increasingly important with devices such as iPads, browsers such as Chrome and operating systems like ChromeOS hitting the market in 2010. Basically this device does not useful without cloud computing services, and the adoption of cloud computing facilitated by them. - samj _in ^out 19:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1 to keep the cloud-centric client; machine where the assumption is that storage and weight calculations are performed "Elsewhere". SteveLoughran (talk) 10:51, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia