3 ms·

Object store is what it is...FTP would be marketing BS implying something that the service isn't at all.

e12e 11y ago
File store? I agree that "object" makes no sense when applied to S3. It's not like you can store an "account" object and call a method to get back the current balance, with accrued interest for the time since last deposit added in. Or even store an image and call a method to get back a black-and-white version. Etc. IMNHO "File server" implies it exports an actual file-system, and would also be wrong. In that light, I think S3 is more like FTP than a "file server". Sure, it might technically be more like WebDAV than FTP, perhaps "FTP-like service using HTTP for transport" is more accurate -- but I'm not sure it's better than just calling it FTP...
- sbilstein 11y ago
  Hah...I mean I think it's a bit arrogant for OP to try and rename all of a company's services. Sure some of them are confusing and could be named better but Amazon is a trailblazer here with lots of these services becoming available on a cloud. "S3 - Simple Storage Service" describes pretty well what the point of the service is without making strong claims around what it may or may not be. It's a service for storing things; it's not a database or a filesystem. The devil is in the details of course but even when I was really new to cloud services I got the gist of what S3 was supposed to do.
- Goladus 11y ago
  > I agree that "object" makes no sense when applied to S3. It's not like you can store an "account" object and call a method to get back the current balance, with accrued interest for the time since last deposit added in. Or even store an image and call a method to get back a black-and-white version. Etc. Well, yes, they aren't OOP objects. But as you say, "files" isn't great either. But it was a theoretical alternative. For example, you could do a search/replace on the S3 docs here: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UsingObjects.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UsingObjects...., and they would still make sense. But FTP isn't even close. You could not find/replace "Object" with "FTP" without making those docs completely incoherent.
  - apetresc 11y ago
    > But FTP isn't even close. You could not find/replace "Object" with "FTP" without making those docs completely incoherent. That's the wrong comparison though. You could replace all instances of "S3" with "an FTP server" and it would make a ton of sense, minus the reliability claims.
    - Goladus 11y ago
      No, it wouldn't make any sense at all. Amazon Unlimited FTP Server is a simple key, value store designed to store as many FTP Servers as you want. You store these FTP Servers in one or more buckets. An FTP Server consists of the following: You could use a mix of "FTP Server" and File: Amazon Unlimited FTP Server is a simple key, value store designed to store as many files as you want. You store these files in one or more buckets. A file consists of the following: Note that this is essentially redefining the word file to include S3-specific metadata.

e12e 11y ago

File store? I agree that "object" makes no sense when applied to S3. It's not like you can store an "account" object and call a method to get back the current balance, with accrued interest for the time since last deposit added in. Or even store an image and call a method to get back a black-and-white version. Etc. IMNHO "File server" implies it exports an actual file-system, and would also be wrong. In that light, I think S3 is more like FTP than a "file server". Sure, it might technically be more like WebDAV than FTP, perhaps "FTP-like service using HTTP for transport" is more accurate -- but I'm not sure it's better than just calling it FTP...

sbilstein 11y ago
Hah...I mean I think it's a bit arrogant for OP to try and rename all of a company's services. Sure some of them are confusing and could be named better but Amazon is a trailblazer here with lots of these services becoming available on a cloud. "S3 - Simple Storage Service" describes pretty well what the point of the service is without making strong claims around what it may or may not be. It's a service for storing things; it's not a database or a filesystem. The devil is in the details of course but even when I was really new to cloud services I got the gist of what S3 was supposed to do.
Goladus 11y ago
> I agree that "object" makes no sense when applied to S3. It's not like you can store an "account" object and call a method to get back the current balance, with accrued interest for the time since last deposit added in. Or even store an image and call a method to get back a black-and-white version. Etc. Well, yes, they aren't OOP objects. But as you say, "files" isn't great either. But it was a theoretical alternative. For example, you could do a search/replace on the S3 docs here: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UsingObjects.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UsingObjects...., and they would still make sense. But FTP isn't even close. You could not find/replace "Object" with "FTP" without making those docs completely incoherent.
- apetresc 11y ago
  > But FTP isn't even close. You could not find/replace "Object" with "FTP" without making those docs completely incoherent. That's the wrong comparison though. You could replace all instances of "S3" with "an FTP server" and it would make a ton of sense, minus the reliability claims.
  - Goladus 11y ago
    No, it wouldn't make any sense at all. Amazon Unlimited FTP Server is a simple key, value store designed to store as many FTP Servers as you want. You store these FTP Servers in one or more buckets. An FTP Server consists of the following: You could use a mix of "FTP Server" and File: Amazon Unlimited FTP Server is a simple key, value store designed to store as many files as you want. You store these files in one or more buckets. A file consists of the following: Note that this is essentially redefining the word file to include S3-specific metadata.