PDA

View Full Version : Who here thinks cloud computing sucks?



fela
September 18th, 2009, 01:32 AM
I just fail to see how any serious computer user should consider cloud computing. Isn't one of the points of using a computer having a degree of control over what happens? I couldn't bear it if some company had complete control and responsibility for what I do on a computer - and that is why I don't get server side ('cloud') computing.

Sure, if you need to do something CPU intensive, or you want to compile a linux kernel in less than an hour then cloud computing would be great as long as you have access to the CPU power on it. But for every day usage? No sir.

Or do I totally misunderstand the concept of cloud computing?

dragos240
September 18th, 2009, 01:34 AM
Cloud is aimed at the "newer" generation of people that do EVERYTHING online, for them, the operating system doesn't matter anymore.

FuturePilot
September 18th, 2009, 01:37 AM
*raises hand*

Mateo
September 18th, 2009, 01:37 AM
I think you miss the concept... for end users the reason for using cloud computers is the immense convenience of having all of your files accessible, everywhere, at almost all times (with the exception of downtimes, which is an overstated criticism IMO).

Cloud computing is hard for control freaks, sure. But it's clearly here to stay, and will continue to pick up steam. You will not be forced to participate.

Mateo
September 18th, 2009, 01:37 AM
Cloud is aimed at the "newer" generation of people that do EVERYTHING online, for them, the operating system doesn't matter anymore.

Which should be a good thing for linux advocates.

fela
September 18th, 2009, 01:39 AM
Cloud is aimed at the "newer" generation of people that do EVERYTHING online, for them, the operating system doesn't matter anymore.

So they use the cloud to do their CPU work for them, I see.

Isn't this what's been going on ever since the internet started? When you visit a (traditional) website and you do something that requires a bit (or alot) of CPU work, the server does it all for you, unless it's something new like flash or whatever where it's executed on the client. Or is the cloud more for file sharing?

dragos240
September 18th, 2009, 01:40 AM
It's more for the social networking scene for what I understand.

Irihapeti
September 18th, 2009, 01:41 AM
Cloud computing assumes that everyone has constant, high-speed, reliable internet access. That's not true in many parts of the world. At my last place, I had 56K dialup. Some people I knew had 28K. My neighbour had "broadband" but it wasn't fast enough to watch online videos properly.

It will suit some, and not suit plenty of others.

sideaway
September 18th, 2009, 01:41 AM
It'll be useful. But I don't think it will be for me. Only some files I think it will be useful.

fela
September 18th, 2009, 01:41 AM
I think you miss the concept... for end users the reason for using cloud computers is the immense convenience of having all of your files accessible, everywhere, at almost all times (with the exception of downtimes, which is an overstated criticism IMO).

Cloud computing is hard for control freaks, sure. But it's clearly here to stay, and will continue to pick up steam. You will not be forced to participate.

If I had a static IP address and a configurable NAT I'd much sooner go with file storage on my own at-home file server and a good upload speed ISP.

I guess cloud computing is convenient if you don't mind entrusting all your files to a third party organization/company...

Mateo
September 18th, 2009, 01:46 AM
If I had a static IP address and a configurable NAT I'd much sooner go with file storage on my own at-home file server and a good upload speed ISP.

I guess cloud computing is convenient if you don't mind entrusting all your files to a third party organization/company...

Cloud computing is just a technological paradigm. It says nothing of who HOSTS the technology. You can run your own cloud computing platform, if you want.

Here's one:

http://eyeos.org/

Cloud computing is "big tent", it can work for many people's needs. A lot of people have misconceptions about it. If you really want to learn, I'd love to talk to you about it, I'm a big advocate.

fela
September 18th, 2009, 01:49 AM
Cloud computing is just a technological paradigm. It says nothing of who HOSTS the technology. You can run your own cloud computing platform, if you want.

Here's one:

http://eyeos.org/

Cloud computing is "big tent", it can work for many people's needs. A lot of people have misconceptions about it. If you really want to learn, I'd love to talk to you about it, I'm a big advocate.

Cool, well everyone seems to be talking about having some company like google store all their files...not for me thanks.

I'm still into the old school each-person's-stuff-on-each-person's-computer...none of that server side bull :)

Shibblet
September 18th, 2009, 01:54 AM
I see the benefits in the workplace. I also see the benefits for the "on-the-go" user.

It's not for me though. I like my desktop.

Hyporeal
September 18th, 2009, 01:56 AM
If I had a static IP address and a configurable NAT I'd much sooner go with file storage on my own at-home file server and a good upload speed ISP.

You don't even need a static IP if you use DDNS. Add a VPN and you're all set. No cloud required.

That said, I think cloud computing has potential. We just haven't seen it fully realized yet.

fela
September 18th, 2009, 01:56 AM
I see the benefits in the workplace. I also see the benefits for the "on-the-go" user.

It's not for me though. I like my desktop.

Same. I only use my desktop, I don't have a laptop and I don't work (I'm only 13 :P).

fela
September 18th, 2009, 01:57 AM
You don't even need a static IP if you use DDNS. Add a VPN and you're all set. No cloud required.

That said, I think cloud computing has potential. We just haven't seen it fully realized yet.

Are you saying I can have a web server accessible to the net without a static IP?

TheNosh
September 18th, 2009, 02:00 AM
i wouldn't go with server side computing for my own use, but for companies thin clients can be really handy. the individual workstations are obviously quite a bit cheaper and data loss will not result from local hardware failure. so i'd say it's a pretty good thing for corporate use, but for personal use i wouldn't touch it.

fela
September 18th, 2009, 02:01 AM
i wouldn't go with server side computing for my own use, but for companies thin clients can be really handy. the individual workstations are obviously quite a bit cheaper and data loss will not result from local hardware failure. so i'd say it's a pretty good thing for corporate use, but for personal use i wouldn't touch it.

But if there was hardware failure on the server side a whole lot of stuff would go down, and it would take a while to get back up (think: how long does it take to pull terabytes off a tape backup...or do they still use them?).

FuturePilot
September 18th, 2009, 02:02 AM
Are you saying I can have a web server accessible to the net without a static IP?

Yes. Check out DynDNS (http://www.dyndns.com/). There's a few others too, but I can't think of their names off the top of my head.

fela
September 18th, 2009, 02:08 AM
Yes. Check out DynDNS (http://www.dyndns.com/). There's a few others too, but I can't think of their names off the top of my head.

Thanks. I just tried that but it appears there's another hurdle: our router runs a DHCP server and to the outside world (this is a security feauture I think) our network of computers appears as one IP address.

Oh well I'm off now.

TheNosh
September 18th, 2009, 02:42 AM
But if there was hardware failure on the server side a whole lot of stuff would go down, and it would take a while to get back up (think: how long does it take to pull terabytes off a tape backup...or do they still use them?).

i believe the common practice on company servers is to store data redundantly so if theres a failure with one copy there will be at least one other copy stored on a separate drive. also the cost of maintenance goes down when storing everything on the server.

separate workstation storage = separate storage issues
separate issues = separate maintenance jobs
separate maintenance jobs = separate maintenance fees

that cost adds up a lot faster than if everything is on the server

single storage area (most likely with redundant drives) = only one machine where storage issues are a worry
single location for issues = singe maintenance job
maintenance job = single maintenance fee

even if they have an in house tech crew so (which is pretty common) so they arent paying per job, they will still likely have less issues, resulting in less work so it would cost less to pay them.

Shibblet
September 18th, 2009, 02:50 AM
i believe the common practice on company servers is to store data redundantly so if theres a failure with one copy there will be at least one other copy stored on a separate drive. also the cost of maintenance goes down when storing everything on the server.

Yep. At the place my mother works, they have triple redundant RAID servers just to be ABSOLUTELY certain that nothing is ever lost. They also do complete off-site backups twice a week.

The cloud concept they are working on will allow employees to do their work from any remote location. It basically allows my mom, who's health isn't the best, to continue to work from home, if she is unable to go to the office.

Secondly... did you Zelda-ize the Ubuntu Logo? Nice!

TheNosh
September 18th, 2009, 03:01 AM
Yep. At the place my mother works, they have triple redundant RAID servers just to be ABSOLUTELY certain that nothing is ever lost. They also do complete off-site backups twice a week. i figured as much, thanks. i wasn't sure about the off-site backups though, cause my school is to dumb to do such things.


The cloud concept they are working on will allow employees to do their work from any remote location. It basically allows my mom, who's health isn't the best, to continue to work from home, if she is unable to go to the office. the hospital my mother works at has that sort of setup.


Secondly... did you Zelda-ize the Ubuntu Logo? Nice!
yes, yes i did. thank you. :D

starcannon
September 18th, 2009, 03:06 AM
I think Cloud Computing is a valuable tool to have at my disposal; but not a replacement for traditional computing.

Just my .02

rifak
September 18th, 2009, 03:10 AM
i think it's a problem if the whole OS is geared towards cloud computing. but, that's not to say that having some apps (google docs for example) and files at your fingertips at all times is a bad thing...it's very handy. i use google docs a lot for school for quick editing and printing of papers. but like i said, i could never get by with an OS that revolves around the cloud. my research couldn't possibly get done without having a complete OS on hand (compiling C++ and FORTRAN programs). as long as we have both options, i am all for it.

Shibblet
September 18th, 2009, 03:26 AM
My guess is that Google Chrome OS is going to be a fully functional OS, but operates entirely out of the web-browser.

i.e. your file manager will run in side Chrome Browser.

pwnst*r
September 18th, 2009, 03:59 AM
another one of these threads?

personal use, meh
business use, yay

Windows Nerd
September 18th, 2009, 04:03 AM
*raises hand*
Ditto ^

CharmyBee
September 18th, 2009, 04:06 AM
I think cloud computing's bad too. It's just the whole word-of-mouth hype among young computer users without knowing of the big brother implications of the whole idea.

Gaming clouds are also a dumb idea. It's all vapor ware.

pwnst*r
September 18th, 2009, 04:27 AM
^so wrong.

TheNosh
September 18th, 2009, 05:12 AM
^so wrong.

thank you for clarifying that with such detail.

pwnst*r
September 18th, 2009, 05:17 AM
didn't feel like copying and pasting my previous post.

oh, and you're welcome.

fela
September 18th, 2009, 01:39 PM
I think cloud computing's bad too. It's just the whole word-of-mouth hype among young computer users without knowing of the big brother implications of the whole idea.

Exactly. I don't want other people spying on what I do on the computer...I can't believe so many people have become suckers for all of the cloud hype.


Gaming clouds are also a dumb idea. It's all vapor ware.

Unless you have an infiniband 30GB/s connection between the server and you, I agree with you 100%. Current internet connections are nowhere near enough to carry all the data throughput of gaming. I'm not into gaming anyway though, apart from the odd GTAIV game (which is the sole reason I keep my windows partition, that and the odd left4dead with some mates :)).

pwnst*r
September 18th, 2009, 02:23 PM
Exactly. I don't want other people spying on what I do on the computer...I can't believe so many people have become suckers for all of the cloud hype.





works and will work for businesses.

hessiess
September 18th, 2009, 02:43 PM
The ideas of cloud computing are good, such as being able to assess data everywhere. However software as a service, and putting your work in the hands of another company is in no way a good idea.

I can assess all my files from anywhere by using subversion, but the difference is that I am in compete control of the server end of the system, and all communications across an untrusted media, i.e. the net, are havly encrypted.

My general policy is `trust no one besides me'.

pwnst*r
September 18th, 2009, 03:00 PM
newsflash - CLOUD computing within your own company is awesome. but none of you are thinking about that. OMG third party, OMG big brother. seriously, open up your minds and think outside the box.

t0p
September 18th, 2009, 03:15 PM
Are you saying I can have a web server accessible to the net without a static IP?


Indeed you can. You just need to subscribe to a service like DynDNS.com (http://ubuntuforums.org/dyndns.com). It's a free service, if you want a subdomain like yourname.dyndns.com. Or you can pay to use your own domain name.

RiceMonster
September 18th, 2009, 03:23 PM
newsflash - could computing within your own company is awesome. but none of you are thinking about that. OMG third party, OMG big brother. seriously, open up your minds and think outside the box.

People rarely think of things outside of home computing here.

t0p
September 18th, 2009, 03:24 PM
Cloud computing makes me think of the era of the mainframe and minicomputer, before the microcomputer. Back then, you would work at a dumb terminal connected to a mainframe located somewhere else. Most users never even got to see the computer - and there was no reason why they should - they were tended to by a white-coated priesthood who jealously guarded their status as the only experts able to understand the workings of the mainframe.

It was a positive step when microcomputers came and the public were at last able to have an actual computer at home. That was the dawn of the age of the personal computer. Now cloud computing appears to mark the end of the personal computer. A sad event indeed. :(

fela
September 18th, 2009, 03:28 PM
Shortened: cloud computing is a step backward in most places.

It might just have a future in businesses though, as long as everyone within the business trusts each other (they should).

fela
September 18th, 2009, 03:29 PM
newsflash - could computing within your own company is awesome. but none of you are thinking about that. OMG third party, OMG big brother. seriously, open up your minds and think outside the box.

Could is a separate word from Cloud. Could, Cloud. Could, Cloud. :)

pwnst*r
September 18th, 2009, 03:46 PM
People rarely think of things outside of home computing here.

apparently.


@ fela: thx, fixed.

doas777
September 18th, 2009, 03:50 PM
Yo!

Cloud computing is basically vaporware in my oppinion, but if it was real, I still am offended by it.
this is just a throwback to the darkages, when we programmed with punchcards, and rented time on someones mainframe. not for me. whats next? printer spacing charts and "01 NetPay PIC 9(5)V99 VALUE ZEROS." ?

forrestcupp
September 18th, 2009, 04:17 PM
I've been a person who has been vocal against cloud computing. Truthfully, I think it's a great concept.

But I also think it completely sucks for my personal needs. I, personally, don't want anything to do with a total cloud computing system. It just doesn't make sense for my personal needs. There isn't enough bandwidth and speed to make it sensible for someone like me. But that doesn't mean that it sucks for everyone. Cloud computing is great for people whose needs are met that way.

So, I'm not against cloud computing. What I'm against is if all of us end up being railroaded into cloud computing when the infrastructure isn't sufficient to handle all possible needs through cloud computing. If we're still given the option to have a localized OS and software, and it is merely a choice, then I don't have a problem with it.

MasterNetra
September 18th, 2009, 04:30 PM
I think cloud computing's bad too. It's just the whole word-of-mouth hype among young computer users without knowing of the big brother implications of the whole idea.

Gaming clouds are also a dumb idea. It's all vapor ware.

Although doing the Gaming Cloud thing would minimalize the pirating of games, yea the client software could be pirated (assuming that just isn't provided free of charge) but if the user is required to connect to them to play the game then really unless their is a free pirate server available then ya gotta kinda pay for the service plus I would think the pirate servers could be shut down more easily then removing a pirated offline game that has download locations all over the place.

fela
September 18th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Although doing the Gaming Cloud thing would minimalize the pirating of games, yea the client software could be pirated (assuming that just isn't provided free of charge) but if the user is required to connect to them to play the game then really unless their is a free pirate server available then ya gotta kinda pay for the service plus I would think the pirate servers could be shut down more easily then removing a pirated offline game that has download locations all over the place.

Why are you against pirating games.

You're not the president of Crytek or Rockstar Games are you?

I thought anyone would either have to be that or crazy to be against game piracy...I mean how in any way is it any skin of your nose?

pwnst*r
September 18th, 2009, 05:49 PM
Why are you against pirating games.

You're not the president of Crytek or Rockstar Games are you?

I thought anyone would either have to be that or crazy to be against game piracy...I mean how in any way is it any skin of your nose?

boy i hope this is sarcasm.

slakkie
September 18th, 2009, 05:53 PM
I don't think it sucks, I do think it is hyped too much.

wildman4god
September 18th, 2009, 06:12 PM
Exactly. I don't want other people spying on what I do on the computer...I can't believe so many people have become suckers for all of the cloud hype.



Unless you have an infiniband 30GB/s connection between the server and you, I agree with you 100%. Current internet connections are nowhere near enough to carry all the data throughput of gaming. I'm not into gaming anyway though, apart from the odd GTAIV game (which is the sole reason I keep my windows partition, that and the odd left4dead with some mates :)).

Cloud gaming like OnLive only requires a 1.5 Mb/s bandwidth speed for normal resolution and 5Mb/s for high def, in Pittsburgh you can get 15Mb/s for $30 a month. Onlive spent the last 7 yrs. engineering a new video compression algorithm that can compress video data over 400 fold. problem is its proprietary so anyone else looking to do this will have to pay a licence fee, good news Google is working on an open source version of this.

Also a lot of what we have seen with cloud computing is currently done with html 4, when html 5 become fully published cloud computing will get a lot better. It promises plug-in free (no flash, silver light, etc) web media experience, including 3d graphics using an implementation of OpenGl called webGL.

Also I can see this becoming real popular among consumers really quickly, though it won't be ready for professionals for another 5 - 10 yrs.

But as to the whole "trusting a corporation with your data" My response is, "you trust your money to a bank don't you?" once upon a time no one wanted to give the bank all their money but over time the benefits grew to out weight the negatives and now you'd be nuts not to put your money in a bank. And also, your money isn't sitting in a vault, your money is ones and zeros on their servers just waiting to be hacked into, just like your data. But the bank promises us they will protect out money better than we can, so will it be in time, Google and other companies will develop the tech so they can better protect out data than we can, and the advantage is we can access our data and apps anywhere on any computer.

ice60
September 18th, 2009, 06:15 PM
i don't like cloud computing and don't use it apart from a web email account once a month or so.

but, all computing will be in the cloud in the near future. the OS is becoming less important and more and more devices are becoming mobile and need to be synced as you have more than one device in different places. more apps will be in the cloud and they'll give you more features than a standalone app on a standalone computer.

wildman4god
September 18th, 2009, 06:17 PM
Why are you against pirating games.

You're not the president of Crytek or Rockstar Games are you?

I thought anyone would either have to be that or crazy to be against game piracy...I mean how in any way is it any skin of your nose?

piracy is stealing software, just like you walking into a jewelery store and stealing a ring, your take something that doesn't belong to you, something someone/s spent a lot of time producing and you have no right to take it with out his permission, and to gain his permission you need to pay him what he ask, which is fair. thats whats wrong with piracy, and its also why i use open source apps as much as possible on any OS so I have less reason to resort to piracy.

hoppipolla
September 18th, 2009, 06:30 PM
I think it may prove to be the future of computing for a large percentage of the population, in the not-too-distant future.

I mean think about it. You could buy this CHEAP pc with a simple online package, and that's it. Gaming, software, everything you could ever, EVER need. Online.

I mean, of course lots of people will use a combination of cloud and local computing power, but we are talking about everyday Mr Average here because he makes up most of the computer users out there! :)

wildman4god
September 18th, 2009, 06:33 PM
Yo!

Cloud computing is basically vaporware in my oppinion, but if it was real, I still am offended by it.
this is just a throwback to the darkages, when we programmed with punchcards, and rented time on someones mainframe. not for me. whats next? printer spacing charts and "01 NetPay PIC 9(5)V99 VALUE ZEROS." ?

Cloud computing isn't vapor ware, we already do it in a limited sense, google docs, web based email, facebook, grooveshark, youtube, hule, etc are all examples of modern cloud computing, avairy has a photo editing app, a vector graphics drawing app, and just rolled out a digital audio mixer workstaion, all of which are online. jaycut also has an online video editor. and mozzila is working on a web based IDE for web app development. So cloud computing is already here, it's just in its infancy.

I know it's like grid computing back in mainframe days, but the reason we when from grid to PC was there was no public internet for users to use at home and even when there was bandwidth wasn't good enough, now with the current cpu speed stall local app development has also stalled. So cloud computing will offer more processing power to end users.

wildman4god
September 18th, 2009, 06:39 PM
I think it may prove to be the future of computing for a large percentage of the population, in the not-too-distant future.

I mean think about it. You could buy this CHEAP pc with a simple online package, and that's it. Gaming, software, everything you could ever, EVER need. Online.

I mean, of course lots of people will use a combination of cloud and local computing power, but we are talking about everyday Mr Average here because he makes up most of the computer users out there! :)

I agree, Mr. average usually only "works" on a pc at work, he only bought a pc for his home to access the web, And I can attest that a computer with no internet for me is almost useless for any thing other than work, and even the work is limited in the fact I can't email my document I just typed up. Anywho the new PC for most users now is the new class of smartphones like iPhone, android, palm's webos, etc. they only use local apps because one cloud computing isn't fully realized yet and mobile web browsers can't handle the same web stuff a desktop class device can. and most of their local apps are just local front ends to online services. e.g. last.fm, pandora, facebook, etc.

FuturePilot
September 18th, 2009, 06:47 PM
Cloud computing makes me think of the era of the mainframe and minicomputer, before the microcomputer. Back then, you would work at a dumb terminal connected to a mainframe located somewhere else. Most users never even got to see the computer - and there was no reason why they should - they were tended to by a white-coated priesthood who jealously guarded their status as the only experts able to understand the workings of the mainframe.

It was a positive step when microcomputers came and the public were at last able to have an actual computer at home. That was the dawn of the age of the personal computer. Now cloud computing appears to mark the end of the personal computer. A sad event indeed. :(

I agree. It seems like we're going to be going backwards now.


I've been a person who has been vocal against cloud computing. Truthfully, I think it's a great concept.

But I also think it completely sucks for my personal needs. I, personally, don't want anything to do with a total cloud computing system. It just doesn't make sense for my personal needs. There isn't enough bandwidth and speed to make it sensible for someone like me. But that doesn't mean that it sucks for everyone. Cloud computing is great for people whose needs are met that way.

So, I'm not against cloud computing. What I'm against is if all of us end up being railroaded into cloud computing when the infrastructure isn't sufficient to handle all possible needs through cloud computing. If we're still given the option to have a localized OS and software, and it is merely a choice, then I don't have a problem with it.

I completely agree. Having be a choice would be fine for me. I just wouldn't like to be forced into it especially if the infrastructure isn't there and the applications offered do not match up to the locally installed counterpart. That's my biggest issue with cloud computing. All applications run in the cloud are inferior, performance wise and feature wise, to anything installed on the computer. I.E. Google Docs vs. OpenOffice.

kpholmes
September 18th, 2009, 06:47 PM
im dont like google docs, or web based mail (even though its really useful when on the go) i still enjoy pop3, and open office. but.... i got a little secret..... i use ubuntu one. haha, no but really, ubuntu one is cool but other then that ill store stuff on my own server first. kinda contradicting huh.

Hyporeal
September 18th, 2009, 07:26 PM
But as to the whole "trusting a corporation with your data" My response is, "you trust your money to a bank don't you?" once upon a time no one wanted to give the bank all their money but over time the benefits grew to out weight the negatives and now you'd be nuts not to put your money in a bank.

Your bank account is federally insured, which means that you really trust the federal government's capacity to print and borrow enough money to cover your losses if your bank dies. There was no such insurance during the Great Depression, and many people lost everything. In fact, insurance was the only way to convince people to use banks again.

Much is said about company trust and brand loyalty. Frankly, I find it completely illogical. There is usually no way to know that a company is untrustworthy until it is too late.

Shibblet
September 18th, 2009, 07:27 PM
I think it may prove to be the future of computing for a large percentage of the population, in the not-too-distant future.

I mean think about it. You could buy this CHEAP pc with a simple online package, and that's it. Gaming, software, everything you could ever, EVER need. Online.

I mean, of course lots of people will use a combination of cloud and local computing power, but we are talking about everyday Mr Average here because he makes up most of the computer users out there! :)

And as soon as Cloud computing starts being the norm... the media industry will do the same. Movies, Music, Photos will all be available via the net only, which makes DRM a thing of the past.

schauerlich
September 18th, 2009, 07:48 PM
Thanks. I just tried that but it appears there's another hurdle: our router runs a DHCP server and to the outside world (this is a security feauture I think) our network of computers appears as one IP address.

It's not a security feature (at least not deliberately), it's just how routers work. Your router is the only computer hooked up to the rest of the internet, and has the only global IP address. Your router is basically a "sorter" - sorting incoming traffic and making sure it's going to the right computer in its subnet. Routers sort this dynamically, but there are ways to make it always send certain kinds of traffic to a certain computer. This is usually done through port forwarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_forwarding), which basically consists of telling the router "Send all traffic on port 9001 to my laptop".

PhoHammer
September 18th, 2009, 08:40 PM
If we're still given the option to have a localized OS and
software, and it is merely a choice, then I don't have a problem with it.


I think we will end up having this option until the infrastructure is ready. The migration
to the cloud will be a more gradual thing than most people expect. We won't have
someone come in our house and take our current desktop away and I don't think online
services will do anything rash to endanger their current user bases.

Just look how long it took websites to start complaining about IE 6. You can usually sit
with hardware/software from many generations ago for a while before it impedes on
your ability to do things.

Now, for those that just want to keep local machines at the core of things for the sake of
nostalgia... I don't know what to tell you. Play on your 32 GB of RAM, 5.0 GHz CPU
desktop at home and then go to the office to use the nettop. It won't be too bad.

Groucho Marxist
September 18th, 2009, 09:19 PM
Cloud is aimed at the "newer" generation of people that do EVERYTHING online, for them, the operating system doesn't matter anymore.

I enjoy the convenience of using Google Docs for minor word processing, such as making lists of things "to-do" or CDs I need to purchase for my radio shifts. However, I must agree with others when I say that I do not fancy handing over the personal part of "Personal Computer" when it comes to my use of my own hardware/software.

Shibblet
September 18th, 2009, 10:16 PM
I enjoy the convenience of using Google Docs for minor word processing, such as making lists of things "to-do" or CDs I need to purchase for my radio shifts. However, I must agree with others when I say that I do not fancy handing over the personal part of "Personal Computer" when it comes to my use of my own hardware/software.

I don't think the market is big enough for Google Chrome OS, or Cloud computing to actually take over completely.

Anyone who needs specific hardware for a specific purpose will not fall under this category. Like Google said already, it is going to be mainly aimed at Netbooks. And anyone with a netbook knows, the main reason you crack that sucker open is to hop on the net. So the faster the boot-up-and-get-on-the-net, the better.

But imagine your own cloud... One server at home, all other people in your house able to access everything on your main server that the "admin" deems necessary. Web-access from all of the inexpensive terminals instead of having to buy everyone (kids especially) laptops. This is going to be mostly for schools, businesses, and people on the go.

Computer enthusiasts, tinkerers, and gamers will not really want it. And that's fine, it's just another distro with another way of doing things.

HavocXphere
September 18th, 2009, 10:28 PM
I enjoy the convenience of using Google Docs for minor word processing, such as making lists of things "to-do" or CDs I need to purchase for my radio shifts.
+1 Convenient but not exact the place to store mission critical stuff.


I don't think the market is big enough for Google Chrome OS, or Cloud computing to actually take over completely.
The vast majority of the people on the internet do little else besides email, word processing & instant messaging. I think the market is *huge* for chrome OS. As for the cloud computing part: I'm not entirely convinced that everyone understands the difference between storing stuff "in the cloud" as opposed to the hard drive. Many seem to associate it more with the program used to access it.

jrothwell97
September 18th, 2009, 10:37 PM
Cloud computing is convenient for non-vital, non-confidential data.

I don't have a problem with cloud computing, although I don't use it a lot - however, I'd recommend caution:

Do back up. Regularly.
Don't upload confidential data. Your bank statement should never leave your home network. Period.

arinlares
September 18th, 2009, 11:18 PM
I prefer to carry programs on a USB drive. Portableapps.com has a system for that, but it's all Windows software at the moment, but there is talk about Linux support. Many of the programs, and the launcher that gives a menu for all of the programs, run in WINE alright, however.

I don't like the idea of cloud computing, simply because I know what's happening on my thumbdrive, not the server in a secure facility somewhere.

openfly
September 18th, 2009, 11:20 PM
My home cloud computing project is off to a terrific start...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3930888924_825fff7237.jpg

lancest
September 18th, 2009, 11:26 PM
Get 3G wireless broadband and you will start to see the benefits of cloud computing.
Google Docs Use Growing Among Businesses (http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=220001160)
Google Docs, Google (NSDQ: GOOG)'s online word processing application, is becoming more popular among business users. And research firm IDC believes Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) should be worried.

In July, IDC conducted a poll of 262 corporate executives and found that almost 20% of respondents said Google Docs was widely used in their organization, up from almost 6% in October 2007. In a research note, Melissa Webster, program VP at IDC for content and digital media technologies, characterized the usage increase as "impressive."

NormanFLinux
September 18th, 2009, 11:57 PM
Jolicloud is very good as a "cloud computing" OS. Based off good ol' Ubuntu NBR.

samjh
September 19th, 2009, 12:58 AM
personal use, meh
business use, yay

Exactly my thoughts.

The cloud paradigm is perfect for businesses.

For personal use, I think it is a supplement, not a replacement, for local computing and storage. The cloud and conventional computing will co-exist.

Shibblet
September 19th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Exactly my thoughts.

The cloud paradigm is perfect for businesses.

For personal use, I think it is a supplement, not a replacement, for local computing and storage. The cloud and conventional computing will co-exist.

You're not seeing the larger picture. It is great for business use, but personal use works great too.

"Dude, you have to hear this song..."
"Dude, you have to see this movie..."
"Dude, you have to see my picture of ****..."

Did you bring it over? No need, it's in my cloud.

Mateo
September 19th, 2009, 04:19 AM
I've been a person who has been vocal against cloud computing. Truthfully, I think it's a great concept.

But I also think it completely sucks for my personal needs. I, personally, don't want anything to do with a total cloud computing system. It just doesn't make sense for my personal needs. There isn't enough bandwidth and speed to make it sensible for someone like me. But that doesn't mean that it sucks for everyone. Cloud computing is great for people whose needs are met that way.

So, I'm not against cloud computing. What I'm against is if all of us end up being railroaded into cloud computing when the infrastructure isn't sufficient to handle all possible needs through cloud computing. If we're still given the option to have a localized OS and software, and it is merely a choice, then I don't have a problem with it.

Why wouldn't you have an option? Do you think the Cloud KBG is going to come to your house, uninstall Open Office, and steal your Ubuntu live cd?

Mateo
September 19th, 2009, 04:25 AM
I think it may prove to be the future of computing for a large percentage of the population, in the not-too-distant future.

I mean think about it. You could buy this CHEAP pc with a simple online package, and that's it. Gaming, software, everything you could ever, EVER need. Online.

I mean, of course lots of people will use a combination of cloud and local computing power, but we are talking about everyday Mr Average here because he makes up most of the computer users out there! :)

It's ironic, because cloud computing is the best thing that ever happened for Linux, yet Linux users more than users of other OSes, are against it. I think this resistance to change is one of the things that has held Linux back all these years.

Mateo
September 19th, 2009, 04:29 AM
I agree. It seems like we're going to be going backwards now.



I completely agree. Having be a choice would be fine for me. I just wouldn't like to be forced into it especially if the infrastructure isn't there and the applications offered do not match up to the locally installed counterpart. That's my biggest issue with cloud computing. All applications run in the cloud are inferior, performance wise and feature wise, to anything installed on the computer. I.E. Google Docs vs. OpenOffice.

Really, so let's go feature to feature; Gmail vs. your favorite Email application.

stwschool
September 19th, 2009, 04:49 AM
I prefer to carry programs on a USB drive. Portableapps.com has a system for that, but it's all Windows software at the moment, but there is talk about Linux support. Many of the programs, and the launcher that gives a menu for all of the programs, run in WINE alright, however.

I don't like the idea of cloud computing, simply because I know what's happening on my thumbdrive, not the server in a secure facility somewhere.
You don't need portableapps with Linux, just get a usb drive, install ubuntu onto it, install the apps you want, and voila, PC in your pocket.

chessnerd
September 19th, 2009, 04:51 AM
I think it has its uses, but, like you, it isn't for me. I have used Google Docs to move files from computers at school to my computer and, occasionally, I've written collaborative documents in it, but I don't use social networking sites, I don't do a lot of online gaming (unless you count flash games) and I frequently use my computer without going online to do school work or to play a game or to listen to music or to write or to grab files to put on my flash drive. There are plenty of things that I do that doesn't involve the Internet.

What I don't get about cloud computing is the fact that storage space and CPU power are getting better and cheaper every day. We are ten years away from a 3.0GHz 8-core processor for about $100 and a 16 TB, 15,000 RPM hard drive for about $100 as long as we continue to progress at the current rate. What's the need for cloud computing when you won't need any online storage or CPU power? (This assumes, of course, that you aren't storing massive amounts of videos/music or playing really intensive games, which the average person doesn't.)

Also, anything you store in the cloud seems more vulnerable. Imagine if billions of people are using a single sever system (maybe at Google or Microsoft or some other company) to store documents and files with personal information. That server will get tens of thousands of attacks a day and, someday, one of them will work and everyone who stored files there will be at risk. You're better off keeping any files you don't want others getting at on your own computer. In fact it would be better if you stored them on a flash/external drive that you didn't always have hooked to your computer so they wouldn't even be accessible when you were online. Anything connected to the Internet is far more vulnerable than something that isn't. A normal computer is probably connected between 4 and 14 hours a day and that would vary day by day. A server like that would be up there 24/7 for people to try to exploit.

I see no advantage of the cloud except that it is accessible everywhere, but with the availability of flash drives, I don't even think that is very important.

Shibblet
September 19th, 2009, 04:59 AM
What I don't get about cloud computing is the fact that storage space and CPU power are getting better and cheaper every day. We are ten years away from a 3.0GHz 8-core processor for about $100 and a 16 TB, 15,000 RPM hard drive for about $100 as long as we continue to progress at the current rate. What's the need for cloud computing when you won't need any online storage or CPU power? (This assumes, of course, that you aren't storing massive amounts of videos/music or playing really intensive games, which the average person doesn't.)

I think we're closer than 10 years, but that's a great assessment. It's true that hardware is getting better and cheaper.


Also, anything you store in the cloud seems more vulnerable. Imagine if billions of people are using a single sever system (maybe at Google or Microsoft or some other company) to store documents and files with personal information. That server will get tens of thousands of attacks a day and, someday, one of them will work and everyone who stored files there will be at risk. You're better off keeping any files you don't want others getting at on your own computer. In fact it would be better if you stored them on a flash/external drive that you didn't always have hooked to your computer so they wouldn't even be accessible when you were online. Anything connected to the Internet is far more vulnerable than something that isn't. A normal computer is probably connected between 4 and 14 hours a day and that would vary day by day. A server like that would be up there 24/7 for people to try to exploit.

Now why has no one talked about vulnerability before? If your files are accessible in the cloud, doesn't anyone, like a highly skilled cracker, have access?


I see no advantage of the cloud except that it is accessible everywhere, but with the availability of flash drives, I don't even think that is very important.

Flash drives can be lost, or stolen, or etc... Not needing to take anything with you is a great advantage. Imagine going on a vacation, and someone steals your laptop (it happened to me) Now how do you do your work? Go to any cyber-cafe, and Viola, you're good to go.

Mateo
September 19th, 2009, 05:05 AM
Your flash drives don't sync to your documents automatically. There's the #1 advantage. Time. Which is more valuable than ever and will become even more valuable in the future as it's the one resource that we positively can't reproduce.

samjh
September 19th, 2009, 05:11 AM
Now why has no one talked about vulnerability before? If your files are accessible in the cloud, doesn't anyone, like a highly skilled cracker, have access?

People have pointed out security issues with cloud computing. However, those issues are seen as non-issues by cloud advocates since files stored locally or on portable devices can also be compromised. Cloud advocates take the Fort Knox approach to security: hoard everything in one fortified location and protect them there.

stwschool
September 19th, 2009, 05:16 AM
People have pointed out security issues with cloud computing. However, those issues are seen as non-issues by cloud advocates since files stored locally or on portable devices can also be compromised. Cloud advocates take the Fort Knox approach to security: hoard everything in one fortified location and protect them there.
Tbh the biggest issue in terms of vulnerability is the user. If they access cloud resources from a compromised machine, or allow their password to be sniffed accross the network, or simply use a crappy password, or use the same password on multiple sites and one is hacked, then the problems begin there. The actual cloud computing service is rarely itself the source of security issues.

chessnerd
September 19th, 2009, 05:21 AM
Flash drives can be lost, or stolen, or etc... Not needing to take anything with you is a great advantage. Imagine going on a vacation, and someone steals your laptop (it happened to me) Now how do you do your work? Go to any cyber-cafe, and Viola, you're good to go.

True, and I have lost things before (such as my GameBoy Advanced and GameBoy Advanced SP, yeah, both of them). However, I feel like my files are safer in my pocket than in the cloud.


Your flash drives don't sync to your documents automatically. There's the #1 advantage. Time. Which is more valuable than ever and will become even more valuable in the future as it's the one resource that we positively can't reproduce.

This is also true (although there is file syncing software but I won't get into that) and I agree that time will become more valuable in the future, but think about large files. Putting an 10GB file on a flash drive in the future with USB 3.0 will take a few seconds to a minute. On the Internet, unless you have a wicked fast connection, you're going to have to wait hours to get that file. Even nowadays USB 2.0 is faster than the Internet for moving files. Anyone whose ever put a Linux distro onto a external drive for storage can tell you this. I use a USB external drive to store dozens of distros so that I won't have to sit around and wait for 20 minutes if I want to make another Live CD, plus, it allows me to test distros in VirtualBox at better speeds than a CD drive.

Mateo
September 19th, 2009, 05:27 AM
True, and I have lost things before (such as my GameBoy Advanced and GameBoy Advanced SP, yeah, both of them). However, I feel like my files are safer in my pocket than in the cloud.



This is also true (although there is file syncing software but I won't get into that) and I agree that time will become more valuable in the future, but think about large files. Putting an 10GB file on a flash drive in the future with USB 3.0 will take a few seconds to a minute. On the Internet, unless you have a wicked fast connection, you're going to have to wait hours to get that file. Even nowadays USB 2.0 is faster than the Internet for moving files. Anyone whose ever put a Linux distro onto a external drive for storage can tell you this. I use a USB external drive to store dozens of distros so that I won't have to sit around and wait for 20 minutes if I want to make another Live CD, plus, it allows me to test distros in VirtualBox at better speeds than a CD drive.

You don't transfer gigabytes of data at a time in cloud computing, so you're using an example of something that doesn't actually exist. If you're transferring more than a few hundred kilobytes, then you do it by streaming (music, for example, Pandora, Last.FM).

angryfirelord
September 19th, 2009, 05:39 AM
Cloud has become an overused buzzword, but all it means is that you're taking the user's applications and hosting them on a centralized service (i.e. servers).

Back in the olden days of IT, if one wanted to deploy or update software, they would have to do it manually with each machine, which for a large enterprise is very time consuming. Eventually, we got smart and went over to imaging and cloning, which made deploying applications easier. What the cloud does is it simply goes to the next step by removing that system and outsourcing (not to be confused with offshoring) that altogether. Rather than writing an app for Windows XP, Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc., all one has to do is write it for the web browser. So now if a business wants to deploy new, proprietary accounting software, all the developers have to do is write it for Firefox instead of each platform and upload it to the server side, which then takes care of the maintenance and performance of those servers.

Now, does that mean OSs will be irrelevant? No, not very soon anyway. If anything, Microsoft's dominance over the PC industry will make sure that cloud computing comes very slowly since it eats into their main product line. But like the WWW, this is an idea that will take 10 to 20 years to fully mature and be tested properly.

Copernicus1234
September 19th, 2009, 06:51 AM
I just fail to see how any serious computer user should consider cloud computing. Isn't one of the points of using a computer having a degree of control over what happens? I couldn't bear it if some company had complete control and responsibility for what I do on a computer - and that is why I don't get server side ('cloud') computing.

Sure, if you need to do something CPU intensive, or you want to compile a linux kernel in less than an hour then cloud computing would be great as long as you have access to the CPU power on it. But for every day usage? No sir.

Or do I totally misunderstand the concept of cloud computing?

I think working with your files from applications runnable in any browser is much more convenient than having to sit in front of your computer at home. Its why web based email became popular, and why stuff like Google Wave will become a great success. And I will probably use Ubuntu One to share files with my friends if its secure enough. All the files I share need to be encrypted. It would be convenient if this was done automatically.

Nobody but me should know what I am doing.

arinlares
September 19th, 2009, 06:52 AM
You don't need portableapps with Linux, just get a usb drive, install ubuntu onto it, install the apps you want, and voila, PC in your pocket.

Problems:

1) After booting into Ubuntu with the drive hundreds of times, it might last a year.

2) Most libraries or schools do not like people restarting the computer and booting into a different operating system.

3) As I said, most of the programs run under WINE. What if you need the files for Windows?

stwschool
September 19th, 2009, 07:26 AM
Problems:

1) After booting into Ubuntu with the drive hundreds of times, it might last a year.

2) Most libraries or schools do not like people restarting the computer and booting into a different operating system.

3) As I said, most of the programs run under WINE. What if you need the files for Windows?
1. An 8GB flash drive is dirt cheap. Back it up regularly, and you'll be spending less than you would on subscriptions for anything with the same level of flexibility.
2. They may also have policies about printing and other activities. They may not have internet.
3. Partition the flash drive to give NTFS some storage space, and put the files Windows needs on that bit.

arinlares
September 19th, 2009, 09:30 AM
Why bother? I've got an 8GB flash drive with a full software suite, all free. Almost all of it runs perfectly under WINE. I'm not talking about cloud computing from a USB drive, but Firefox, GIMP, VLC, Open Office, ClamWin, among others, running from a USB drive, with all of the data and files needed on the drive, and no files written to the host computer, aside from maybe a list of programs I launched, providing they monitor that. No internet connection required to run these programs from a public terminal, just to download and install them to the flash drive.

fela
September 19th, 2009, 10:07 AM
boy i hope this is sarcasm.

You're in for a disappointment. How is it any skin of anyone's nose whether some company loses a bit of money due to people illegally downloading its proprietary software? Unless they're part of that company?

HappinessNow
September 19th, 2009, 10:09 AM
It's more for the social networking scene for what I understand.
AKA "The Masses"

koshatnik
September 19th, 2009, 10:15 AM
I think you miss the concept... for end users the reason for using cloud computers is the immense convenience of having all of your files accessible, everywhere, at almost all times (with the exception of downtimes, which is an overstated criticism IMO).

Network drive sat on my desk at home takes care of that.



Cloud computing is hard for control freaks, sure.

Its not about being a control freak, its about trust. I don't trust anyone with my data.



You will not be forced to participate.

Maybe not right now, but who knows in the future? Computing is becoming less and less about personal choice, more about what you are told to do.

HappinessNow
September 19th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Maybe not right now, but who knows in the future? Computing is becoming less and less about personal choice, more about what you are told to do.

"You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!"

samjh
September 19th, 2009, 11:10 AM
You're in for a disappointment. How is it any skin of anyone's nose whether some company loses a bit of money due to people illegally downloading its proprietary software? Unless they're part of that company?

Bold font added by me.

Software doesn't just mysteriously form out of waste air from one's buttocks. It requires work, and people do that work for pay. Pay means money for food, housing, clothing, and other expenses of life. Businesses need to make profits in order to pay their workers. Profits occur as a result of revenues exceeding expenditure. For software producers, revenues come from selling software. Piracy means people obtain said software illegally for free when they should be paying for it. Piracy means sales revenues from software products are reduced. Reduction in revenue means reduction in profits, or even losses. Losses or inadequate profits mean: downsizing, project cancellations, employee lay-offs.

So whose nose skin is shed due to piracy? At first, it's the business (loss or reduced profit), then its the consumer (rise in price to offset inadequate revenue), then its the worker (sacked due to insufficient sale of their software).









[Very angry due to a bunch of ex-colleagues and friends having been laid off last week.]

Bodsda
September 19th, 2009, 11:35 AM
I think cloud computing sucks for several reasons.

1) It will either be fast and insecure or secure and immensely slow. You cannot store peoples files on the internet and secure it with just a pasword, it would just be wrong, you must use encryption. And encryption means that a decryption procedure must take place, therefore it is slower then holding the files on the desktop.

2) Computers that are connected to the internet are 100% more vulnerable then a machine that is not connected to the internet. And a machine that is connected to the internet 24/7 is much more vulnerable then a machine connected as and when its needed. This 'end user' everyone speaks about barely understands what a virus is let alone how things like directory harvest attacks and trojans work, so how can they possibly be secure in a cloud environment? And if the 'host' of the OS/Files is going to be securing all this then that seems like a single point of failure to me.

I guess I'll just stick to my crappy little earth based OS and not be forced into doing things someone else's way just because they host my files.

fela
September 19th, 2009, 11:37 AM
Bold font added by me.

Software doesn't just mysteriously form out of waste air from one's buttocks. It requires work, and people do that work for pay. Pay means money for food, housing, clothing, and other expenses of life. Businesses need to make profits in order to pay their workers. Profits occur as a result of revenues exceeding expenditure. For software producers, revenues come from selling software. Piracy means people obtain said software illegally for free when they should be paying for it. Piracy means sales revenues from software products are reduced. Reduction in revenue means reduction in profits, or even losses. Losses or inadequate profits mean: downsizing, project cancellations, employee lay-offs.

So whose nose skin is shed due to piracy? At first, it's the business (loss or reduced profit), then its the consumer (rise in price to offset inadequate revenue), then its the worker (sacked due to insufficient sale of their software).

[Very angry due to a bunch of ex-colleagues and friends having been laid off last week.]

The odd student pirating AutoCAD or Adobe CS4 or whatever won't matter though.

When you actually have the money then it's bad to pirate. But not when you're skint and can't afford to pay 1000+ for software.

pwnst*r
September 19th, 2009, 11:45 AM
You're in for a disappointment. How is it any skin of anyone's nose whether some company loses a bit of money due to people illegally downloading its proprietary software? Unless they're part of that company?

because it's bad for the industry.

pwnst*r
September 19th, 2009, 11:47 AM
The odd student pirating AutoCAD or Adobe CS4 or whatever won't matter though.

When you actually have the money then it's bad to pirate. But not when you're skint and can't afford to pay 1000+ for software.

don't blame the industry because you can't afford it. that's a ridiculous statement. theft is theft, either way you look at it.

koshatnik
September 19th, 2009, 11:49 AM
because it's bad for the industry.

I'd argue its good for the industry. Forces them to engage with the customer and review the way they produce and distribute their products, and also forces them to work with and collaborate with other companies to find creative solutions to the issues of piracy in a digital age.

Well, at least thats what they should be doing, instead of crying about it like a bunch of pissbabies.

pastalavista
September 19th, 2009, 12:04 PM
don't blame the industry because you can't afford it. that's a ridiculous statement. theft is theft, either way you look at it.
The word 'theft' doesn't really apply to intellectual property. Misappropriation is the more correct term for the offence and it is a civil offence, not criminal. Cloud computing will be primarily useful to those who have no stake in the computer/software industry and profitable for the industry only if consumers are willing to pay. Software is intangible and easily altered and therefore impossible to keep in a locked box.

It doesn't "suck", it's just capitalism trying to feed the need... for profit if possible.. for good-will, if nothing else.

gjoellee
September 19th, 2009, 01:05 PM
There are good things and bad things about cloud computing.

Good:


You can access all of your files by using any computer with internet
Share files easier
Basically the world gets smaller
You need less space on your HDD


Bad:


IF someone managed to hack the cloud then.......:shock:
Makes people rely even more on the Internet
What happens when you don't pay your Internet bill, you're stuck at home and don't want to hack anyone's Internet. You're to shy to go to your friends and/or neighbors and ask them if you could use their Internet.

TheNosh
September 19th, 2009, 07:31 PM
The odd student pirating AutoCAD or Adobe CS4 or whatever won't matter though.

When you actually have the money then it's bad to pirate. But not when you're skint and can't afford to pay 1000+ for software.

i know many (probably around 6 dozen or so) people that have and love adobe CS4, i know 1 person that payed for it. that ratio is pretty screwed up.

CS4 is pretty expensive, but if the majority of people using it won't pay for it the price has to be high. they need enough money from selling the product to offset the cost of developing the product. if all who used it would pay for it the cost adobe would need to charge for it would be significantly lower.

lisati
September 19th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Cloud computing assumes that everyone has constant, high-speed, reliable internet access. That's not true in many parts of the world. At my last place, I had 56K dialup. Some people I knew had 28K. My neighbour had "broadband" but it wasn't fast enough to watch online videos properly.

It will suit some, and not suit plenty of others.
And some ISPs cap data use and then throttle speeds back to "dial-up" after the cap is exceeded.


Cloud computing makes me think of the era of the mainframe and minicomputer, before the microcomputer. Back then, you would work at a dumb terminal connected to a mainframe located somewhere else. Most users never even got to see the computer - and there was no reason why they should - they were tended to by a white-coated priesthood who jealously guarded their status as the only experts able to understand the workings of the mainframe.

It was a positive step when microcomputers came and the public were at last able to have an actual computer at home. That was the dawn of the age of the personal computer. Now cloud computing appears to mark the end of the personal computer. A sad event indeed. :(
Excuse me while I have a fit of nostalgia. Many years back as part of my job I occasionally had to see to it that updates were applied to some of the mainframes belonging to the company I worked for. Being the new kid on the block at the time, so to speak, it didn't always go down too well when I suggested to the "priesthood" that a restart or some other such activity that could affect their uptime was needed in order to complete the process.

spoons
September 19th, 2009, 08:31 PM
My guess is that Google Chrome OS is going to be a fully functional OS, but operates entirely out of the web-browser.

i.e. your file manager will run in side Chrome Browser.

Didn't Microsoft get it's knuckles rapped by the US for doing something like this with Internet Explorer?

Old_Grey_Wolf
September 19th, 2009, 08:51 PM
Cloud computing looks good for large corporations like the one were I work with well over 10,000 employees with computers.

For personal computing purposes I prefer my own desktop OS at home.

But, if you want one check out this article Canonical - An Open Source Company Embracing The Clouds (http://www.cloudave.com/link/open-source-and-cloud-computing-series-canonical-an-open-source-company-embracing-the-clouds)

Shibblet
September 19th, 2009, 10:21 PM
Didn't Microsoft get it's knuckles rapped by the US for doing something like this with Internet Explorer?

They did because Internet Explorer was also the file manager. Making it impossible to remove the browser.

But Google Chrome OS is a browser, making installation of any other browser an figurative impossibility...

Good Point.

Mateo
September 19th, 2009, 11:06 PM
No one has mentioned how cloud document collaboration blows away the traditional method of "i edit a file, email it to a few people, they edit it, email it back, I accept/deny changes, send an updated copy, repeat".

http://tinyurl.com/339cv4

Shibblet
September 20th, 2009, 12:53 AM
No one has mentioned how cloud document collaboration blows away the traditional method of "i edit a file, email it to a few people, they edit it, email it back, I accept/deny changes, send an updated copy, repeat".

http://tinyurl.com/339cv4

Doesn't have to be emailed anymore. It's just there.

pwnst*r
September 20th, 2009, 02:53 AM
Doesn't have to be emailed anymore. It's just there.

i think that's what he just said.

forrestcupp
September 21st, 2009, 05:00 PM
Why wouldn't you have an option? Do you think the Cloud KBG is going to come to your house, uninstall Open Office, and steal your Ubuntu live cd?

No, but that doesn't mean they have to keep updating their software from now on. All they have to do is start only developing cloud versions of software.

In 15 years, if I'm still using software from 2009 because it's the only localized option, that's not really any better than the "Cloud KGB" coming and uninstalling Open Office. I could still primarily use my Commodore 64 if I wanted to.

Shibblet
September 21st, 2009, 08:58 PM
In 15 years, if I'm still using software from 2009 because it's the only localized option, that's not really any better than the "Cloud KGB" coming and uninstalling Open Office. I could still primarily use my Commodore 64 if I wanted to.

Another good point. If cloud computing becomes the norm, people will have to subscribe to application packages. Like $15.00 per month for use of Cloud Office or something to that effect. This is of course only on the privately owned cloud computer.

Businesses would buy Cloud Server versions of software, or their cloud server would be in another cloud of it's own.

I think at this point, we would see a lot less software upgrades from the software manufacturer.

lisati
September 21st, 2009, 09:03 PM
I could still primarily use my Commodore 64 if I wanted to.

I could fire up the two Commodore 128s I have (one with dead sound). Having a CP/M disk for them I wonder where I can get CP/M software to use.

forrestcupp
September 21st, 2009, 09:12 PM
I could fire up the two Commodore 128s I have (one with dead sound). Having a CP/M disk for them I wonder where I can get CP/M software to use.

Maybe at the Unofficial CP/M Web Site (http://www.cpm.z80.de/). ;)

lykwydchykyn
September 21st, 2009, 09:28 PM
I have yet to see a particular cloud service that didn't seem like it could be useful to someone in some scenario. Generalizing about "the cloud" is difficult because everyone seems to mean something different by it.

People mean everything from online apps to online storage to an entire online virtualized desktop.

I'm still not clear on what having my own "personal cloud" means, or how it differs from ye olde "Running services on a server" which has been around for 30+ years, but I get the distinct impression there's something significant here that I'm missing.

openfly
September 21st, 2009, 09:40 PM
Your ps2 has a 128 bit processor with 2 sets of independent bus cache and memory at 64 bits.

The server in your basement collecting dust has 2 processors.

Your little brothers hand me down PC has a dual core athalon.

Your xbox has 3 cores.

Your gaming computer has 4 cores.

Your ps3 has 6 cores.

The old dev server has 8 cores.

The prod servers have 16 - 32 cores.

The new box has 48 cores...

Does anyone see the pattern here? Cloud computing will be... PC computing in 10 years or so. When your OS is completely virtualized... and the hardware underneath needs to be dynamically reallocated based on dynamic / custom application virtual engines being loaded, stressed, unloaded, broken, hacked, updated, reverted....

I mean cloud computing today is what PC computing will be under the hood in 10 years. It's the next step in computer architecture and while right now it is sprawling itself across datacenters... the way it allows for the management of vast quantities of resources will be applied in all aspects of hardware and software design going forward.

Look forward to it. It's going to be fantastic stuff. But don't think of it all as google mail, and ec2 / s3. It's way way more than that. We've only just begun to develop and deploy the underlying architecture... no body has even begun to really see what this stuff can do... and I can tell you from experience... it can do a hell of a lot more than anyone will openly mention.

It's great.

lespaul_rentals
September 22nd, 2009, 03:18 AM
Thanks. I just tried that but it appears there's another hurdle: our router runs a DHCP server and to the outside world (this is a security feauture I think) our network of computers appears as one IP address.

Oh well I'm off now.

You can forward ports and set up static addressing for your private subnet.

dasunst3r
September 22nd, 2009, 03:34 AM
If this "cloud" has redundancy to prevent a single point of failure from taking down a lot of users, then it could work. Still, I would not want the copy in this "cloud" to be my only copy.

I think "Ubuntu One" is a great concept, but I wish that I can "roll my own cloud" with the webspace I bought already and use disk space there.

Dullstar
September 22nd, 2009, 04:58 AM
The cloud idea doesn't seem to get good attention. But if it takes over hard drives, I must know how to build my own. Because I will not entrust my files to this cloud.

fela
September 22nd, 2009, 10:03 AM
don't blame the industry because you can't afford it. that's a ridiculous statement. theft is theft, either way you look at it.

So if you were a policeman and spotted someone stealing nappies for her baby because she couldn't afford to buy them, would you arrest her?

It's not that far off.

Also, someone who can't afford to spend thousands on software isn't ever going to do that. So if there was no piracy they wouldn't get the software. But seeing as there is, they do get the software. Why's it any better if they can't get the software for free and won't pay for it? It's worse actually, because they don't get the software at all.

fela
September 22nd, 2009, 10:06 AM
You can forward ports and set up static addressing for your private subnet.

Would you tell me how? I've found no port forwarding features on my router's config page. It's a pretty cheap router and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't have this feature.

I kind of want to keep it how it is anyway because it means I get much less worry about security - as in, no one from the outside world can see our computers as individual computers, and even if all the files on my server were at 777 permissions still no one could access them. It's a great security feature if you don't need access from outside.

xpod
September 22nd, 2009, 10:34 AM
Would you tell me how? I've found no port forwarding features on my router's config page. It's a pretty cheap router and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't have this feature.

I kind of want to keep it how it is anyway because it means I get much less worry about security - as in, no one from the outside world can see our computers as individual computers, and even if all the files on my server were at 777 permissions still no one could access them. It's a great security feature if you don't need access from outside.

If your router does have port forwarding capabilities you may find instructions on here (http://portforward.com/) for your particular model.

fela
September 22nd, 2009, 10:38 AM
If your router does have port forwarding capabilities you may find instructions on here (http://portforward.com/) for your particular model.

Thanks. I'll edit my post if it works :)

EDIT: it seems I need a static IP address. Something I don't have :S

Exodist
September 22nd, 2009, 10:41 AM
I believe cloud computing will be good for a company on its own network getting the most out of their computers by sharing the work load on all systems on their network. But for home user,, nah..

xpod
September 22nd, 2009, 10:50 AM
Thanks. I'll edit my post if it works :)

I should have really offered a word of caution when it comes to opening ports to the outside world, especially if your going to start playing around with all kinds of servers/services.We wouldn`t want to see any "i`ve been hacked" threads over in the Security section after all. :wink:

Mateo
September 23rd, 2009, 01:44 AM
The cloud idea doesn't seem to get good attention. But if it takes over hard drives, I must know how to build my own. Because I will not entrust my files to this cloud.

There are already several open source cloud OSes out there, EyeOS is one example. You can run the cloud in your own server, and access it from any where.

Dullstar
September 23rd, 2009, 04:11 AM
FACE PALM...

Were you paying attention to the post?! ](*,)

Dullstar
September 23rd, 2009, 04:12 AM
The point is, I don't WANT the cloud in any form except the big white fluffy ones in the sky made of water vapor.

pwnst*r
September 23rd, 2009, 04:42 AM
FACE PALM...

Were you paying attention to the post?! ](*,)

lol

Mateo
September 23rd, 2009, 04:52 AM
i guess i misunderstood what you wrote. i thought when you said "build my own", you were talking about a cloud system, but maybe you were talking about something else.

fela
September 23rd, 2009, 03:05 PM
I should have really offered a word of caution when it comes to opening ports to the outside world, especially if your going to start playing around with all kinds of servers/services.We wouldn`t want to see any "i`ve been hacked" threads over in the Security section after all. :wink:

Don't worry, I'm not about to feed port 21 on a plate to the script kiddies of the world :)

steev182
September 23rd, 2009, 03:11 PM
We've only just begun to develop and deploy the underlying architecture... no body has even begun to really see what this stuff can do... and I can tell you from experience... it can do a hell of a lot more than anyone will openly mention.

It's great.

Like end up becoming Skynet! Hmm, Cloud computing, where do Clouds live?! THE SKY! I just hope a T-1000 doesn't creep up behind me now... :popcorn:

fela
September 23rd, 2009, 03:13 PM
i know many (probably around 6 dozen or so) people that have and love adobe CS4, i know 1 person that payed for it. that ratio is pretty screwed up.

CS4 is pretty expensive, but if the majority of people using it won't pay for it the price has to be high. they need enough money from selling the product to offset the cost of developing the product. if all who used it would pay for it the cost adobe would need to charge for it would be significantly lower.

And then there's the catch 22:

If Adobe doesn't bring its prices lower then how can anyone except the super rich possibly consider paying for it?

But then: How can Adobe possibly think about bringing its prices lower unless more people pay for it?

The solution is for Adobe to bring its prices alot lower to begin with, maybe to just a couple hundred bucks. Maybe for the first year or so Adobe will actually be getting losses. Thing is, a whole LOT of people will actually pay for it if it's this much cheaper, and once enough people have decided to buy it down to the low cost, Adobe'll start making money again.

So the only ones that can fix this problem is Adobe. I mean, poor people, or just people that aren't disgustingly rich, will not pay for things like Adobe CS4. And piracy is here to stay, so that makes it even less likely that anyone except the super rich will pay for it.

Adobe and other software companies, bring your prices down. (chant after me)

Shibblet
September 23rd, 2009, 10:26 PM
And then there's the catch 22:

If Adobe doesn't bring its prices lower then how can anyone except the super rich possibly consider paying for it?

But then: How can Adobe possibly think about bringing its prices lower unless more people pay for it?

Essentially... Adobe could cut it's prices in half, sell twice as many copies, but then they have twice as many customers, making twice as much support, and updates, etc, etc, etc. Which is probably why they don't do it. They prefer to be a "premium product" for a "premium price."

If all of the Adobe products are available in "the Cloud", users would have to pay a subscription. And it won't be a cheap one. This is where I see computing going in the next 5-10 years is subscription services, like cell phones. Cloud computing makes that possible.

When it first starts, you will have a choice to buy the Adobe Creative Suite # for about $1500.00, or subscribe to the Adobe Cloud service for $100.00 / month.

Eventually, over the shelf purchases will phase out. In order to continue using Adobe software, you will have to join their Cloud subscription.

Oh, by-the-way, if you sign a year contract with Adobe, they'll sell you the workstation at a discount.

Tell me that doesn't sound a little too real.

TheNosh
September 23rd, 2009, 10:43 PM
The solution is for Adobe to bring its prices alot lower to begin with, maybe to just a couple hundred bucks. Maybe for the first year or so Adobe will actually be getting losses. Thing is, a whole LOT of people will actually pay for it if it's this much cheaper, and once enough people have decided to buy it down to the low cost, Adobe'll start making money again.

given how far they'd go in the hole by doing that, along with the current state of the economy, that wouldn't really work.

billdotson
September 24th, 2009, 12:12 AM
It has good and bad implications. Storing anything that could slightly be considered personal (or working on anything personal) would not be done by me on any cloud server.

Pros:

The gaming cloud services sound like great ideas to me. I am really happy to hear Google is working on open source implementations of this (or at least similar technology). The connection speed requirements for OnLive aren't too bad right now. It requires a 1.5mbps connection for standard definition content and 5 mbps for 1280x720 resolution content. I have a 6mbps connection on ATT and I live in a small town ($35 a month).

Verizon offers 15mbps on fiber in bigger places for about $40 a month, 25mbps for ~$65 and 50mbps for $125 (don't quote me on pricing). Once connection speeds get higher on average this stuff will be great. If the individuals working on this technology can get it where it can stream a game at 1920x1200 resolution (or whatever a really high resolution will be when it gets popular; a Japanese company is working on Super Hi-Vision that is 7680 4320 resolution ! ) then that would be amazing. Imagine being able to play a game on any device that can use html 5. The only caveat is that I want to be able to purchase games, not rent them on a subscription. That and I want to be able to back up my game settings (key map, etc.) Additionally, I want a backup server in case the main one goes down (or a physical backup copy). A guarantee from someone (govt, game publisher, whoever) that if the company goes out of business I will still own my game would be desirable too. OTOY is doing this too. I already signed up for an onlive beta key. Also, it sounds as if some of these services are going to have the content streaming using HTML. Yes, that means no special OS-dependent software. I would assume you just sign in with your information and get to playing.

For business, university or school use it is great. Have a big server with redundant backups (and the option to back up your files on removable storage) and run all the applications from the big server. Depending on implementation this would save schools and businesses a lot of money. Additionally, the tech people would only have to fix the server farm not every individual machine around. Also, deploying an operating system upgrade would be really fast. Instead of going to each computer with a DVD installer (or even the better option: distributing OS clones from a server) just install the OS and update it on the server. Then the only issues one might have on the other computers are networking issues.

Media services. If you buy a song, film, photograph, or anything similar it would be nice to be able to access it from anywhere provided you provide your username and password. Have one HTPC in your house and have all of your movies you have purchased available, with DVD-like navigation menus from that. No more fiddling with the discs (or, if you don't necessarily follow the law, copy the discs to your hard drive for personal use). It would be pretty cool to just pull up Lord of the Rings by turning on a PC or internet enabled device. This would also make the "movie people" happier as it would help fight piracy. The netflix streaming deal is already pretty awesome, it just needs to work on more devices. This is basically the only feature I miss on home media servers. Sure, I can look an my own videos, listen to music and look at pictures, but I mostly just want to be able to watch my movies without going down into my movie vault to dig it out.

CONS:

For personal use (or me making something that I might sell or distribute with a open source license) I want those programs running on my computer. I say open source stuff because I wouldn't want to get snooped on, have someone grab the code, copyright it and sell it (yes I am paranoid as some would call it). I would want to keep it safe until I was ready to open source it. So this is basically the privacy and big brother factor.

File availability on the go isn't a huge deal for me right now because I spend most of my time in front of my computer at home. I am not a mobile person for the most part. I am however, thinking of setting up a server cluster (or just a single computer as a server) for my house. I have two PCs, although a few years old, and would like to make them useful.

fela
September 24th, 2009, 03:44 AM
The gaming cloud services sound like great ideas to me. I am really happy to hear Google is working on open source implementations of this (or at least similar technology). The connection speed requirements for OnLive aren't too bad right now. It requires a 1.5mbps connection for standard definition content and 5 mbps for 1280x720 resolution content. I have a 6mbps connection on ATT and I live in a small town ($35 a month).

You haven't thought about the bandwidth usage of it though in relation to other things. Think - if file sharing and video streaming is already stressing the bandwidth of alot of gateways on the internet (you know what I mean), then what havoc would cloud gaming bring on anyone trying to do any work on the internet? I think video gaming belongs on the computer of whoever likes to play video games, and should have nothing to do with the internet (no, I don't play multiplayer games, ever).

Just my two quid (I live in the UK).

fela
September 24th, 2009, 03:46 AM
given how far they'd go in the hole by doing that, along with the current state of the economy, that wouldn't really work.

Well encouraging people to pirate it with its 4000+ /$ price tags, isn't very healthy for its business either. The mere fact that more people pirate Adobe's products than buy them proves that its prices are too high.

Shibblet
September 24th, 2009, 07:25 AM
Well encouraging people to pirate it with its 4000+ /$ price tags, isn't very healthy for its business either. The mere fact that more people pirate Adobe's products than buy them proves that its prices are too high.

It doesn't have anything to do with encouraging pirating. If you have a $1500.00 price tag and a specific target market, lowering the price isn't going to attract very many new customers.

If Adobe dropped the price to $750.00 (Half) they would still have the same customers, but now only making half the money. And if they dropped the price further, like say $300.00 then everyone who truly doesn't need the product would buy it anyway, because of the name.

Ferrari makes one of the nicest vehicles on the planet. And they charge around $250,000.00 for an entry-level one. Do you think they'd sell more if they dropped the price to $125,000.00? Probably, but not twice as many. And really, why should they? The car they already sell is worth the $250,000.00. They don't need to pander to a lower price crowd.

Simple fact of the matter is that the people that aren't Adobe Clients, don't really need Adobe software. There are plenty of lower cost options available.

i.e. Publisher is a much less expensive (albeit less extensive) InDesign. InDesign is designed for a commerical printer / designer. Publisher is designed for the home user.

i.e. Gimp is a free Image Manipulation Program comparable to Photoshop, only not as extensive for the commercial printer / designer. Gimp handles almost all of the features most people pirate Adobe Photoshop for, and can be downloaded by anyone. Gimp is arguably great for commercial photo editors as well.

i.e. Inskcape is a great vector graphics program, but not as extensively and commercially used as a design tool. But it allows people to have a vector graphics editing program for free, and not have to pirate Illustrator.

i.e. PDF writers. Cute PDF comes to mind. There are a multitude of PDF writers/printers out there, especially in Linux, and no need to pirate Acrobat PRO.

Those are the main 4. And unless you are a commercial printer, or a commercial designer, there is no truthful for Adobe products. And IMHO some of those commercial printers and designers use other programs like Corel, or Freehand.

Adobe fills a niche market, and charges a premium fee to do so. Such is the price of doing business.

Encouraging pirating is like saying open source is irrelevant. Open Source is the cure for pirating.

Exodist
September 24th, 2009, 07:29 AM
You haven't thought about the bandwidth usage of it though in relation to other things. Think - if file sharing and video streaming is already stressing the bandwidth of alot of gateways on the internet (you know what I mean), then what havoc would cloud gaming bring on anyone trying to do any work on the internet? I think video gaming belongs on the computer of whoever likes to play video games, and should have nothing to do with the internet (no, I don't play multiplayer games, ever).

Just my two quid (I live in the UK).

Yea users with bandwidth restrictions can get hurt by this. But I think this is better suited for corporate usage alot more then home usage.

lespaul_rentals
September 24th, 2009, 07:46 AM
Would you tell me how? I've found no port forwarding features on my router's config page. It's a pretty cheap router and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't have this feature.

I kind of want to keep it how it is anyway because it means I get much less worry about security - as in, no one from the outside world can see our computers as individual computers, and even if all the files on my server were at 777 permissions still no one could access them. It's a great security feature if you don't need access from outside.

The Internet will still see your entire network as one IP address. That's called NAT (Network Address Translation). If NAT doesn't work, then your network will probably have trouble accessing the Internet, if it can at all. That's really why you have a router, to convert all your network's traffic to one IP address.

All you need to do is forward the appropriate port to a static IP on your internal network. So, say you wanted SSH to be forwarded to your computer. Your computer's IP address must be set to a static IP of your choosing. You can do that in network settings or drop down into command-line interface and modify /etc/network/interfaces (the best way, in my opinion).

Go into your router settings and forward port 22 (or whatever port) to the IP address you have set (say 192.168.0.5).

Now, whenever someone remotely connects to [your public IP address]:22, the router will pick it up and forward it to 192.168.0.5:22. (Don't try to test this from your private network. It won't work. When I need to test stuff like this out, I forward the traffic through Tor. That way, I can type [my IP address]:[port] and the router will think it is a foreign client connecting.)

Where DynDNS comes in is when you need to remember your public IP address, if it dynamically changes. Mine does this, but I have a DynDNS domain name set up. They have update clients that you can install that will automatically update the records whenever your IP address changes. That means that a remote user can now type [yourdomain.webhop.org]:22 and will always be directed to your IP address, even if they don't know it.

About the whole "open your port 21 to all the script kiddies on the Internet" thing, I actually did that for a period of 6 months or so, running vsftpd. I did get insane numbers of bruteforce attempts. But it was a joke, really -- they were all attempts to crack the "administrator" account, thanks to our friends in China. Lol. Go for it, crack the "administrator" account...it doesn't even exist on Linux. :) I found it an amusing game to come home from work, check my log files, and ban the IPs.

Basically, you don't have to worry about forwarding individual ports to computers on your private network, so long as you have correctly configured the services you intend to receive traffic. Back to the vsftpd example, even if the script kiddies had tried to crack the "root" account, it would have been futile, as root login was disabled. See what I'm getting at? If you're smart about what you open to the world, and you know how to access and read log files, you'll be absolutely fine.

pwnst*r
September 24th, 2009, 02:49 PM
it's almost comical how little some of you know about basic business sense.

fela
September 24th, 2009, 03:56 PM
it's almost comical how little some of you know about basic business sense.

Well I don't hear much from you. At least some people aren't afraid to speak.

Being ignorant isn't being stupid. Wanting to be ignorant is stupid.

Telling other people that they don't know anything about something isn't helping at all.

You obviously aren't really interested in making the world a better place, as you seem to make out.

pwnst*r
September 24th, 2009, 06:11 PM
Well I don't hear much from you. At least some people aren't afraid to speak.

Being ignorant isn't being stupid. Wanting to be ignorant is stupid.

Telling other people that they don't know anything about something isn't helping at all.

You obviously aren't really interested in making the world a better place, as you seem to make out.

perhaps you should read the thread again. i pointed out that it makes perfect sense for businesses to share, but it's not ideal for personal use.

next

Shibblet
September 24th, 2009, 07:46 PM
perhaps you should read the thread again. i pointed out that it makes perfect sense for businesses to share, but it's not ideal for personal use.

next

I'm next. And I've said this before. It works great for personal use. If you have your own little cloud at home, your network, files, media, etc. Will all be available to you anywhere you go.

Or having one server to function terminals around the rest of the house.

ElSlunko
September 24th, 2009, 07:58 PM
It's clearly useful for personal use for the person on the go and for sharing non-critical files. Come on guys, it's a technology not a complete Operating System overthrow.

openfly
September 24th, 2009, 08:49 PM
Heh ... cloud computing, this thread is more like clown computing.

Shibblet
September 24th, 2009, 09:20 PM
Heh ... cloud computing, this thread is more like clown computing.

Whatever. A clound enabled browser is a great addition to your home PC. But to make all PC's Cloud only would be stupid, and even Google knows that.

pwnst*r
September 24th, 2009, 09:23 PM
I'm next. And I've said this before. It works great for personal use. If you have your own little cloud at home, your network, files, media, etc. Will all be available to you anywhere you go.

Or having one server to function terminals around the rest of the house.

a cloud at home is not a cloud.

openfly
September 24th, 2009, 09:28 PM
pwnstr.. yeah i see what you are saying, but cloud architecture and design patterns will find their way into home computing eventually. as pc's bare metal systems become massively parallelepiped ( hundreds of cores and buses ), and as operating systems become more virtualized... you will see plug and play virtual "chunks" being managed across those parallel systems using a lot of the same techniques that have been used in cloud. And while it won't be occurring on the big cloud we call the internets.. it will be something of a cloud... in the architecture of your pc.

pwnst*r
September 24th, 2009, 09:33 PM
pwnstr.. yeah i see what you are saying, but cloud architecture and design patterns will find their way into home computing eventually. as pc's bare metal systems become massively parallelepiped ( hundreds of cores and buses ), and as operating systems become more virtualized... you will see plug and play virtual "chunks" being managed across those parallel systems using a lot of the same techniques that have been used in cloud. And while it won't be occurring on the big cloud we call the internets.. it will be something of a cloud... in the architecture of your pc.

and i understand what you're saying, but the premise behind the word "cloud" is something that exists outside of your own network.

Shibblet
September 24th, 2009, 09:37 PM
and i understand what you're saying, but the premise behind the word "cloud" is something that exists outside of your own network.

That being the case, you could still store your media outside your network so it is available for you everywhere you go.

The "suck" part is when you have to pay for it monthly.

openfly
September 24th, 2009, 09:37 PM
and i understand what you're saying, but the premise behind the word "cloud" is something that exists outside of your own network.

Yeah but the term has become the brand name for a collection of technologies that make it possible to offer slices of resources on an abstracted environment to clients ... over the internet.

I don't believe there's a functional way to disambiguate the the technology from the branding at this point and that means the meaning of the word may very well be open to interpretation. English is a living language after all, and "cloud computing" hasn't exactly had time to cement its definition just yet... thus it being fodder for sales reps looking to pump up their whitepapers with "keywords".

fela
September 24th, 2009, 10:18 PM
perhaps you should read the thread again. i pointed out that it makes perfect sense for businesses to share, but it's not ideal for personal use.

next

I don't like your tone of text.

Mateo
September 24th, 2009, 10:37 PM
and i understand what you're saying, but the premise behind the word "cloud" is something that exists outside of your own network.

A cloud at home is accessible outside of your network. You are hosting the cloud, but it's still accessible anywhere that has an internet connection.