MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Are eBooks Moving to the Clouds (and Will Google Dominate)?

DawnFalcon · 06-15-2010, 01:22 PM

Shocker - I don't feel a need to have a badly designed blog for every one of my online identities! Heck, I actually use a CMS (Drupal) rather than a blog for the site - linked to my real name, which I chose not to link to this one - because it's far more suitable.

HTML5/CSS3 (they're not really separable) is *totally* a red herring, especially when XP users won't be able to use IE9 - come back in three years, and it might be worth discussing starting the feasibility studies, if you're smaller than Google.

And of course "web and enterprise" isn't. "Web services" were doing a "cloud" long before that buzzword came around, and for certain forms of enterprise service, such as the aforementioned render farms, it does make sense to offload the processing load. For now - again, processing speeds go up quicker than bandwidth falls in price, so the viability of those services is only going to fall.

The content providers, though, are going to consider it a major benefit given their track record of preferring minimal user rights, as demonstrated by their current efforts to change the law around the world in their favour.

It's their track record. Argue with them, not me.

"Anyone whose hosted a trafficked site on a single server without scalable compute knows hosting on a virtualized compute system is way more preferable"

A complete sideline of nonsense. Firstly, I don't think "trafficked" means what you think it does, I'm not selling roads here. Secondly, virtual machines were arround well before cloud computing, and there is a distinct difference between being able to fire up additional instances of a web server at a remote facility and "cloud computing" as is being used as a buzzword.

But frankly, in the vast majority of cases it makes more sense to throttle connections for temporary spikes than to pay for virtual instances, when 100% uptime is not a priority - as it isn't for many sites. You are pushing a highly monolithic, corporatist view of the future, and this is as they say not coincidence.

(I also note you only denied being a PAID shill. Sigh)

06-15-2010, 01:22 PM	#17
DawnFalcon Banned Posts: 2,094 Karma: 2682 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: N/A	Shocker - I don't feel a need to have a badly designed blog for every one of my online identities! Heck, I actually use a CMS (Drupal) rather than a blog for the site - linked to my real name, which I chose not to link to this one - because it's far more suitable. HTML5/CSS3 (they're not really separable) is totally a red herring, especially when XP users won't be able to use IE9 - come back in three years, and it might be worth discussing starting the feasibility studies, if you're smaller than Google. And of course "web and enterprise" isn't. "Web services" were doing a "cloud" long before that buzzword came around, and for certain forms of enterprise service, such as the aforementioned render farms, it does make sense to offload the processing load. For now - again, processing speeds go up quicker than bandwidth falls in price, so the viability of those services is only going to fall. The content providers, though, are going to consider it a major benefit given their track record of preferring minimal user rights, as demonstrated by their current efforts to change the law around the world in their favour. It's their track record. Argue with them, not me. "Anyone whose hosted a trafficked site on a single server without scalable compute knows hosting on a virtualized compute system is way more preferable" A complete sideline of nonsense. Firstly, I don't think "trafficked" means what you think it does, I'm not selling roads here. Secondly, virtual machines were arround well before cloud computing, and there is a distinct difference between being able to fire up additional instances of a web server at a remote facility and "cloud computing" as is being used as a buzzword. But frankly, in the vast majority of cases it makes more sense to throttle connections for temporary spikes than to pay for virtual instances, when 100% uptime is not a priority - as it isn't for many sites. You are pushing a highly monolithic, corporatist view of the future, and this is as they say not coincidence. (I also note you only denied being a PAID shill. Sigh)