Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft launches Windows Azure, its "cloud OS"

roughtype.com

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: Microsoft launches Windows Azure, its "cloud OS"

#21
post #17
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did you actually trust Microsoft with online computing? Before Vista? I don't see a huge relationship between Vista and their online efforts. Sounds like a bit of MS bashing propaganda from somebody who has never liked or trusted them.

Microsoft has never "gotten" the internet. They still don't. I don't see any reason to suppose they have suddenly "gotten" it here.

How about discussing the proposition on its merits, rather than pedigree?

It's not like there are ten new cloud platform come in every day and we have to make a snap decision. We can, in fact, afford to look at the offer itself.

Re: Microsoft launches Windows Azure, its "cloud OS"

#22
post #21
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has never "gotten" the internet. They still don't. I don't see any reason to suppose they have suddenly "gotten" it here.

How about discussing the proposition on its merits, rather than pedigree? It's not like there are ten new cloud platform come in every day and we have to make a snap decision. We can, in fact, afford to look at the offer itself.

Sorry, but if I want to buy a laptop, I wouldn't buy one from Pepsi. Similarly, if I want something Internet related, I wouldn't get it from Microsoft. I just don't see any evidence they understand it. They have done an absolutely awful job in the last 10+ years.

Re: Microsoft launches Windows Azure, its "cloud OS"

#23
post #20
post #9

Am I wrong in wondering if cloud computing might do for computing what hedge funds and CDSs did for finances? By this I mean that in both cases we're talking about attaining the last iota of efficiency by consolidating a resource in the hands of a few. What happens when the MS cloud goes down? (I know. Impossible.) We've seen the stories about people who have lost access to their gmail accounts. What if a large porti…

Amazon currently have 3 separate data centers and additional S3 storage in Europe. This trend will continue as SLAs become more of a selling point for all Cloud purveyors. Second why do people think that your own data center will be better? It is like putting your money under the bed rather than in the bank. So people do that but not a good idea. Lastly we will see a common API emerge that will allow us to move with…

Your reply seems to be a spot-on agreement with my post, except that you don't realize it. Your choice of analogy is particularly amusing in that, right now, if you'd had your money under your mattress, you'd be better off than if you'd invested in one of these highly-leveraged and over-exposed financial vehicles that I'd mentioned. Mattressing one's money may have been the best idea of them all for a large class of investors.

That aside, the proper way to make the analogy you're making is not to compare investing in a CDS against putting money in or under your mattress, but rather to compare it with putting it in a certificate of deposit in your locally-owned bank or loaning it to a locally-owned business. Either of these would very likely have less return and a higher risk for you. However, you would be less susceptible to a global default cascade like the one that is happening now.

The reason that ...your own data center [would] be better... isn't that it's less likely to go down, but rather that, if everybody has their own data center, the chances of a global blackout go down drastically. This is precisely the analogue I was pointing out. If banks had stayed non-optimum and local, then (arguably) we would not be facing a (potential) global economic meltdown.

You may argue (rightly) that if you pursue these localist strategies when everyone else is pursuing these more profitable consolidated strategies, which carry this systemic risk of catastrophic failure, that you'd succumb to competition from others. This is the point of asking for regulation in the market, and (possibly) the case for asking for it here. At some point, almost by definition, the cloud computing market will commoditize. When that happens, the only way to cut costs will be do do without redundancy, if that is a legally available option.

The underlying problem is that people discount the cost/benefit of events that happen in the distant future, and the global catastrophes in these two systems always seems distant.

Finally, one may object that if redundancy is such a good idea, then it will happen naturally and never be eroded by market forces. In this case, then, there can really be no objection to legislation on the matter, because everyone will naturally comply anyways.

Re: Microsoft launches Windows Azure, its "cloud OS"

#25
post #23
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon currently have 3 separate data centers and additional S3 storage in Europe. This trend will continue as SLAs become more of a selling point for all Cloud purveyors. Second why do people think that your own data center will be better? It is like putting your money under the bed rather than in the bank. So people do that but not a good idea. Lastly we will see a common API emerge that will allow us to move with…

Your reply seems to be a spot-on agreement with my post, except that you don't realize it. Your choice of analogy is particularly amusing in that, right now, if you'd had your money under your mattress, you'd be better off than if you'd invested in one of these highly-leveraged and over-exposed financial vehicles that I'd mentioned. Mattressing one's money may have been the best idea of them all for a large class of…

Almost nobody has yet lost money on typical retail bank products. Even a checking account is better than the mattress. Retail banking is doing just fine. Not that that's too relevant.

Re: Microsoft launches Windows Azure, its "cloud OS"

#26
post #22
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about discussing the proposition on its merits, rather than pedigree? It's not like there are ten new cloud platform come in every day and we have to make a snap decision. We can, in fact, afford to look at the offer itself.

Sorry, but if I want to buy a laptop, I wouldn't buy one from Pepsi. Similarly, if I want something Internet related, I wouldn't get it from Microsoft. I just don't see any evidence they understand it. They have done an absolutely awful job in the last 10+ years.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft launches Windows Azure, its "cloud OS"

#27
post #17
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did you actually trust Microsoft with online computing? Before Vista? I don't see a huge relationship between Vista and their online efforts. Sounds like a bit of MS bashing propaganda from somebody who has never liked or trusted them.

Microsoft has never "gotten" the internet. They still don't. I don't see any reason to suppose they have suddenly "gotten" it here.

Not entirely true. They've really gotten it where console gaming is concerned, moreso than anyone else. The Xbox has been consistently better than its rivals at that.

They're now serving up millions of dollars worth of games per month (allegedly 70% of Xbox owners have used Live Arcade) and are moving into streaming video too. I can now watch MSNBC through it.

They've achieved the dream an internet-connected box on millions of people's TVs. Apple tried and failed miserably with their TV product.

There clearly are people at the company that get it.

Re: Microsoft launches Windows Azure, its "cloud OS"

#30
post #18

Maybe I'm missing something here, because nobody is mentioning it, but isn't this a major shift for MS? Microsoft is a software company basically (other than mice and zunes and 360s), but here they are offering essentially hardware-as-a-service. If, last week, I would have gone to Dell and bought a server with a windows license (Disclaimer: I'd never do such a thing!), I'd now just pay MS to run my app on Azure . Del…

H/w vendors are only cut out if MSFT invents a replacement for metal. Granted, utility computing in the cloud is about squeezing more utilization and value out of a given piece of h/w, so it's not without impact. You might perceive this as a change, but I'd say it's a change in the paradigm moreso than a change in MSFT.

Also, people tend to overlook this but cloud isn't really about infrastructure or hosting. Sure those are the current analogs--cloud is about what happens next, and I think it's more about shifting architectural tenets so that we do what works well with cloud scale and lifecycle. When you do those things, other interesting things start to become possible (e.g., in the cloud, it's hard to have misaligned test and prod envs, not the rule like it is most everywhere else).

Post reply on HN