On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > When people invest their money into something, they want to be "in charge" of > it. And if they are supposed to share it with others, there is bound to be a > lot of friction. One of the key ideas that makes Amazon's EC2 and S3 successful is that you pay for what you use, and you can stop paying whenever you want. And most importantly, there are no upfront costs. If you're a cloud user (the Dean of Engineering in your example), you did not directly provide the capital that got the cloud built. All a user provides is an account number to which they're billed for what they use. The idea is that a large organization should be able to make a decent guess as to how much cloud they need. They borrow money or make a capital expenditure to build the cloud. Then, they get tenants from all over their enterprise to use the cloud and pay for it one hour and one gigabyte at a time. The cloud is like an office building. The first tenant doesn't have to pay for the whole thing. Somebody has an idea of what the demand is for office space. They build it and charge rent to recoup their investment. If a tenant leaves, they try to find another to take their place. Any large organization (be it a public corporation, University, or government entity) can find a large pile of cash or borrow it to make a capital expenditure. And they will, if they are confident it will save them money. The initial purchase doesn't have to be funded directly from somebody's grant or product X. Also, a single grant or department probably won't have the access to financing that the enterprise does to build their cloud. That's why many definitions say clouds are multi-tenant. Its not the same as sharing and trying to play nice. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
