[fizzfur]

If my mum starting using The Cloud in sentences she would mean "The Internet", she doesn't have the concept of a server, and doesn't really need to, she just knows it's "Out there somewhere".

I think it would be unlikely for one of my peers (mostly developers) to mention "The Cloud" unless they were trying to be intensionally buzzwordy for comedy effect. They would be more specific.

I/We would however say:

  a cloud to mean clusters machines (probably split into VPSs)
  xxxx's cloud to mean xxxx's server infrastructure/platform

I like The Cloud as a common term to mean "Stored/Processed out there in the internet somewhere", not as a well defined technical term.

[ryanelkins]

I think it feels "buzzwordy" because too many people abuse it. It is a legitimate term but it is being stretched to the point where it is no longer useful. To me a cloud is a system where I can dynamically change my resource usage without having to really understand the underlying structure supporting it. I don't install an OS, I don't monitor specific servers for failure, I never upgrade anything; that level of minutiae is abstracted away.

[lsc]

This is a valid definition... but it's not most people's definition. For example, if you are running on ec2, well, you've still gotta install the OS (granted, there are tools that make it easier, but you still have to do it, and you still have to keep up with security patches, etc..) you've still gotta deal with failure, deal with upgrades, etc...

Granted, you could say that ec2 isn't cloud... you could say that ec2 is a VPS system with a decent and fast provisioning API. Your definition would say that hiroku and google app engine are 'cloud' - something few people would argue with... it's just that most people call ec2 'cloud' as well.

This, I think, is why most technical people find the term 'cloud' to be useless... there isn't a strong and generally accepted definition that isn't so nebulous as to be not very useful.

[jnoller]

I don't think the need to consider maintenance and scalability removes something from the definition of "the cloud" - consider the fact that on modern VPSes and EC2 I can spin up new resources within a heartbeat - sure, I still have to think about stuff, but instance on for elastic resources is what I think caused the "cloud" term to come into being.

[lsc]

so your definition of the cloud differs from the definition ryanelkins gave. This is all well and good, both the "completely abstracts hardware and OS details" definition that Ryan gave and the "just allows you to really quickly provision new hardware" definition you gave are fine definitions, and both are useful services in many cases. but my point is that you get five nerds in a room and you are going to have at least three completely different definitions of "cloud"

[jnoller]

You're right - and that worries me (personally, and professionally). I do think it's time the collective "we" start being a little bit more responsible with the term, so that others might.

Otherwise I'm worried we're going to see someone try to rebrand the internet as "the cloud" and then we're all doomed :)

[lsc]

I think "the cloud" has never had a solid, specific meaning, and it probably never will. I don't begrudge marketing and middle management their own set of jargon. Really, letting marketing and middle management have their own overly vague words can be good sometimes. If the boss asks you to put something "In the cloud" you have a lot of latitude to choose the solution that is most suitable for the situation.

Hell, maybe "cloud" will end up in the vague but useful category like "solution" I mean, sure, "solution" is even more broad than "cloud", but sometimes it seems more concise than "product or service" in a sentence, so it's still a word that I use sometimes.