In broader news, it seems like there has been a lot of controversy over the Uptime Institute's recent verdict on the efficacy of cloud computing.

We can all pretty much agree that there are a lot of ways to define cloud computing, and that as an idea it has a lot of potential. The problem at hand seems to be who will and will not benefit from adopting it. While some have blamed the Uptime Institute for funding research which is in its own best interest as a data center-centric organization, first of all it's hard to blame someone for that, and secondly, there are some really good points about why the cloud might not be for everyone at this point. It can be quite effective for smaller-sized companies, but for larger ones, it may be less efficient than seeking other options. The Institute's report advocates virtualization for these sizable companies, since it can be done in-house and increases productivity while saving money. According to Team Silverback COO Don Small, "Cloud computing is not mature enough to replace data centers. It's more than a novel concept, but not yet developed enough to be mainstream."

It's important to look at the situation objectively rather than letting tensions run high.

Something that has come up a lot is whether or not the idea of cloud computing is over-hyped. It's hard to tell what direction things are going to take, and what time and experience will show about the cloud. Useful and interesting terms have a tendency to get over-hyped. Think of how often you see the word "solutions" in the world of IT. After a while, these words evolve to mean a lot of things they were never intended to mean. We have to be careful to keep an eye on how terms change and make sure they don't pollute our decisions.

---

Share this with your network!