4 ms·
Calling S3 "FTP" is a bit misleading, I would have just called it "File Storage" and explained it along the lines of FTP instead.
by beefsack 10y ago
Calling S3 "FTP" is a bit misleading, I would have just called it "File Storage" and explained it along the lines of FTP instead.
- em3rgent0rdr 10y agoI agree. Alternatively they should have never used a silly acronym "S3" and just stuck with the full name: "Simple Storage Service".
- em3rgent0rdr 10y agowell there is a genuine need for a short url. But instead of aws.amazon.com/s3 I would say aws.amazon.com/storage would have been a good tradeoff, and similarly for the other services just use the dictionary word of the service. "AWS" already has "service" in the acronym, so no need to repeat "S" or "service" for every sub-service of "Amazon Web Services".
- vacri 10y agoS3 = two characters and two syllables Simple Storage Service = twenty-two characters and six syllables Given how much it's used in discussions around online storage, the former is definitely preferable. The fully spelled-out name is really only useful to ultra-newbies, and not to anyone with even a hint of experience in the product. Not much gained there.