Hi, I wanted to know if using Google docs, like their document or spreadsheet,chart making tools could be classified as 'cloud computing'?
Docs.google.com
and
http://code.google.com/apis/chart/im...rt_wizard.html


If not , how would you define them? they are not traditional 'install on system' software. Whats the proper word for them?

If I am right, cloud computing is storing files on a server over the internet. You don't need to store files on your computer to use Google Docs. You can access Google Docs on any computer.

As far as I know, Google Docs is cloud computing.

"Cloud computing" is just the latest sensible outgrowth of the business of "server hosting." In my view, it comes down to a few basic ideas ...

1. Thousands of companies out there are doing more-or-less the same thing, and so, they need computer configurations that have become quite typical and standardized. They want, "this is what I want ... is it ready yet?" Perhaps they want 100 copies of it. They want to be able to change their deployments quickly and easily. They don't particularly care where the servers are. They don't want to own them (all).
2. Therefore, there is now a practical "economy of scale" opportunity. Hosting companies can afford to buy hundreds of top-flight servers, put them in state-of-the-art data centers, and they can monitor all of them with a comparatively small staff. Most, if not all, of the configuration-and-setup procedure is now completely automated.
3. "Now that we have it, we need a really cool-n-sexy name for it..."

didn't we do that back in the `70's and `80's
thin client and logged in to a server ??????

And before that it was mainframe.....


"Cloud computing" is just a new name for a very old idea. I don't know if it is a new generation of IT people "discovering" this over and over or if the IT people miss the days when they controlled everything and are trying feverishly to get back that power.

A very old and bad idea ... that's why it disappeared only to reappear now because of the "need" for surveillance and control. Not my need, but their need or rather want.

Yes it counts as cloud, and google is major pusher for this, probably because of their secret service ties.

why was it a bad idea? [apart from the control and survellance thing]

Since the mere act of asking such a question obviously means that you must either be a tur'rist or someone from KAOS, I could tell you, but we'd have to use the Cone of Silence first.

In the telephone system, the exchange keeps getting upgraded but you could still make do with an old rotary dial phone at the client end.

Similarly in cloud computing you can keep upgrading or improving the data, programs, procedures, communication etc which reside on the cloud while the end user can access the cloud with any device of his choice. (Desktop, laptop, netbook, smartphone .. anything).

In my view, cloud computing is a little more than using google docs or a mainframe with dedicated lines and dumb terminals.

Immediately the potential for affordable and and standard packages and procedures goes up in the cloud model.

OK

As stated before, they keep your data on their servers, and give you the right to access them. You would trust them to keep your data for you, and to let you always have access to it ? If you do, I guess there's no problem.

Also, I don't see any reason for cloud. What is the problem with regular computers ? I mean, I like to have a computer, and be in control of it. I don't like for my data to be on a server, and then they give me access to the data and programs. What if I don't like the programs they provide ? Or what if they decide that I can't access my data anymore, for whatever reason ?

I don't trust them and I don't see any need or reason for cloud. I hope the idea disappears as it did before.

Storing data on external server makes sense if you want to access it using multiple devices, travel a lot AND internet is available everywhere. If your PC gets stolen or destroyed, you won't lose information. On other hand, there's issue of trust, data is outside of your reach, it is possible to steal account instead of physical device, and you won't be able to access it without internet connection. Storing data on your computer makes sense if you want total control over your information, you won't need internet connection to access it, however if something happens to your PC, you'll lose all data. Both options are reasonable. A good compromise would be to store encrypted backups of data on external server and sync it frequently.

The idea is old, but it has its uses. However, I do not like the name of technology (calling network technology "cloud" IMO, is incredibly stupid), plus the only reason WHY any large company would offer "cloud" to majority of people is to parse all their documents and provide even more context-sensitive advertising.

Storing docs on a web server does count as "cloud computing," though that's a very small subset of what the term actually means.

The term "cloud computing" was invented as an industry buzzword because previous labels for this sort of thing were too hard for business types to grasp. It was previously referred to as "service oriented architecture" (SOA) and "software as a service" (SaaS).

The purpose of cloud computing is to de-couple interfaces by placing a middleware component in between the endpoints. In the case of Google Docs, the middleware component is a web server. That middleware component ensures you can read your docs with any platform... XP, Linux, mainframe, cell phone, etc. You don't have to install/configure any proprietary drivers to access the disk, because the web server will do it for you. On the back end, Google can move the data between any number of different technologies, make a change at the web server, and the change becomes totally invisible to you.

Cloud computing is a BIG deal in big business right now, because companies have been wrestling for decades whenever they've got to upgrade one system, because there might be 15 different systems that interface with it, and they've previously had to rebuild all of those interfaces. If they've implemented SOA correctly, they only need to rebuild one.

Nope. The client-server relationship is still an explicit, direct interface.