The open cloud manifesto sparked debate and speculation in just about every corner of the Internet. "Did IBM purposely structure the document with an anti-Microsoft bias?" "Why did Amazon and Microsoft both roundly reject the document?" "Why are there so many companies that have seemingly nothing to do with the cloud boasting their support?" They're all ultimately superficial and irrelevant.
"Manifestos" have a somewhat sordid history in the tech world. They word used to indicate that a monarch, government, or political party was issuing a declaration of intent. Now it seems to mean some geek has something to say online. Since 1985 there have been manifestos on every topic from cyborgs to the GNU project, cyberfeminism to the origins of the Windows Powershell -- some good, some bad, all entertaining. What I want to know is why the author of the open cloud "manifesto" is getting so much attention from the press? Is it just because it uses the words "cloud" and "manifesto" in the same title? Why is it stirring up speculation and rumor among the techno-political crowd?
[ A question left unanswered by the manifesto: Is cloud computing inherently evil? ]
For the unaware, we're talking about a bloated eight-page PDF (that could be easily trimmed to two) with a very basic structure:
Challenges and Barriers to Adoption
The Goals of an Open Cloud
Conclusion
Obviously, the important section is "Principles of an Open Cloud." While cracker-jack bloggers waste time on the hidden agendas of the various corporations for and against this proposal, I'd like to examine the proposal itself. I think the author needs a good whack with the clue stick. Maybe I can help. I'd like to rebut the six "principles of an open cloud":
