Anyway, omitting that last error in a long line of misquoting and misremembering...I'll respond.
I responded that you were agreeing with me. And then I brought you right back to Kowen's statement. Don't act like I was moving around. The whole thing was connected, and you were directly presented with it. Had that not been something you wanted to address then you should have re-clarified that you had no argument with it. Instead, you ignored it...editting it completely out of your response, and picking out little cherries to continue your platform of argument.
The next thing you said about Orleans and whatever I had no problem with. MS Cloud is good, and I agree, but you weren't addressing my point at all. Your next post says "you should understand something before you call it BS".
My very next reply is asking "wtf are you on about. I'm not talking about the technology, I'm talking about Kowen's statement".
I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading that I've been addressing one point this whole time. You are grasping straws for anything that makes it look like I'm going after other things. I made my points, you editted them out, addressed other things. I did not argue anything about their cloud with you A SINGLE TIME. Yet you continue to think it's your job to educate me on what their cloud does...which is ironic because I even admit that MS Cloud is going to be the better overall service and be able to do more.
Who are you trying to convince? You blatantly stop following the quote trail like I'm going to forget, or that some simpleton is not going to read on or something. lol. What? Hello? You say "maybe if you knew how to stay on point". Great. I did. I said "what the fuck are you talking about though". Obviously you took soemthing I said, and applied it to something else. I shouldn't have to remind you that you did this twice, by the way. The "lock" part, where I was talking about logic, not tech, and "BS" where I'm also talking about the logic, and you think I'm talking about the tech.
But as far as the number of servers portion, yes I do know that distance is important to ping times and service quality. That being said, you cannot also guarantee to me that 300k is just enough, or that it is spread out properly, or that gaikai and rackspace are lacking in datacenter coverage for the specific service they want to acheive. You simply cannot prove either of these things. You can theorize, saying, yes, theoretically 300k should be really great. But yet you still cannot say anything about Gaikai's performance.
It's funny that you tried to address my point finally, but you're still dancing. You know you agree, and you're trying hard to make it seem like there's some sub-argument here. Sorry. It doesn't exist. There's one argument that you veered away from, were redirected to, veered away from again, were reminded of, and now pretend like I went off into many tangents and argued that MS Cloud was bad or something.
My points have been simple. Since you cannot follow them even with help, I can only imagine that it's the English around the points that makes it hard. So here. Have some easy bullets.
1. You don't need 300k servers to be competant in a specific service.
2. Having a lot of servers for a huge business doesn't mean they will be best at a certain specific service.
3.
