3PAR peers through cloud at service providers

@AC 12:00

"He meant delivered by a 3rd party provider , as opposed to owning any internal IT"

Uh ... what does that have to do with what I typed?

Guessed wrong Jake

3PAR's been talking about designing storage for Service Providers since they announced in 2002. Your buzzword of the year 'guess' is simply wrong. They've got more proven vision in cloud than the "jump on the bandwaggon" crowd that has embraced it just in the last year or so.

@StraightTalk

Again, what does that have to do with what I typed?

Kids these days ... A marketing nitwit might be in business for a longish period of time, and s/he might even be selling some sort of product, and might even be separating billions of $CURRENCY from the rubes, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense when you boil it down to basics. See Microsoft and Apple, for good examples.

Yes, I'm a neo-luddite in some ways ... but after more than a third of a century in the computer business, I think I have earned that right.

Dinosaurs don't get rights just because the'yre dinosaurs

@jake

You typed ' "Why is 3PAR looking to develop products on these lines..?" - Probably because buzzwords of the year include "*AAS." ' I pointed out you were wrong.

You typed ' "ALL real world enterprise IT has been delivered as a service since... 1955'ish." ' AC 12:00 pointed out you had it all wrong since Scott was talking about delivering enterprise IT as a public cloud service over the internet.

What else did you type that we missed? More than 33 years in the computer business doesn't earn you the right to be both wrong and insulting.

@StraightTalk

I was not wrong to point out that 3PAR was using the buzzwords as a part of their marketing strategy. They are, and they have been. It's called marketing. I have no issue with that, it's perfectly legal, but I'm not going to be sucked into the hype.

I was also not wrong to point out that enterprise IT has been delivered as a service since year dot, because that is a fact. Have you ever had to justify your division's use of the corporate mainframe to the bean counters? Have you ever even had to justify your personal use of the copy machine?

We've done the "cloud computing" thing (it has had many names over the years), and found it lacking. Especially today, with the low cost of CPU, RAM, disk and I/O.

I may be a Dinosaur, but I have evolved.

I lived, was educated, and made a living when Mainframes ruled the roost.

I don't want to return to those conditions. It sucked.

We have better now. Shall we get on with it? Or do you want to live in the past?

Getting it straight

@jake

You are talking about enterprise IT delivered from an "enterprise-owned and capex-ed" mainframe over an "enterprise-owned and capex-ed" SNA network ,with 1+ year delivery times for new applications, and large ongoing committed fixed electricity, data center and administrator costs (committed by the enterprise). I understand you didn't like the mainframe world, but in making a false comparison, you betray a certain naivity or lack of understanding about the concept of the true delivery of enterprise IT as a service. Your bar for a service is set so low when you use your mainframe (and possibly earlier cloud) experiences that a flea could jump over it.

What you are mistakenly trying to compare does not come close to the modern concept of delivery of enterprise IT as a service. It doesn't include the ability to access enterprise IT without the enterprise's own commitment to significant fixed costs. It doesn't include the concept of pay-for-use charging based on a utility or subscription usage model (and I'm not refering to pseudo internal charge-back schemes that conveniently ignore that all the costs are already committed). It doesn't include access across the internet from one or more third party service providers. It doesn't include the near instant access to new infrastructure or applications as required. It doesn't include the flexible user control of the services they receive.

The mainframe world you mistakenly compare with new cloud services have absolutely no comparison. What seems be the case is that your former experiences with early instances of cloud computing have been disappointing in that they didn't exceed the mainframe experience (and possibly had some greater limitations). But all this points to is that the products that the early cloud providers tried to use weren't designed to deliver enterprise IT as a service. They were just being repurposed from their more traditional enterprise data center use. New products are now being designed that allow cloud services to be delivered with the proper benefits and experiences that should be expected. 3PAR, VMware, CIsco and others have been doing just that.

The "*AASs" are here to stay, and your cynicism is severely misguided. It is only if you run or work in your own enterprise IT operations that you might have something to fear.

@StraightTalk

Wow.

Nice redirection, trying to make folks assume I'm stuck in SNA land.

You are really threatened by my comments, aren't you?

Who are you really, and what is your stake in all this? Willing to talk straight?

My point (in case you missed it) is that centralized computing has gone the way of the dinosaur. Distributed computing is the only real answer over the long haul ...

I don't intend my personal private data, nor my (personal, smallish) company's data, nor any of my largish (and a couple V.big) contract's data to become the property of google, ibm, yahoo, ms, or any other "cloud" provider. It's far cheaper, easier, and secure to roll it out locally.

On the other hand, if ibm starts renting computing power from google (or vice versa), I might decide to change my mind. Until then ... it's snake oil. Enjoy the koolaid.