UbuntuOne AKA Ubunet. What is known so far.

[artir]

UbuntuOne
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/26580477/u1-192-192.png









In first place, in this podcast: http://ubuntupodcast.net/2009/04/02/ubuntu-podcast-episode-24-mark-shuttleworth/ , Mark spoke about it, telling us it's some kind of online service.

2.-A few "suspicious" private launchpad projects exist, such as:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone
https://launchpad.net/ubunet
https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-storage-protocol
https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-client
And teams:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntuone-hackers
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntuone-beta-testers

3.-Acording to Popcon, which track installations of packages, a few people have installed the packages:
http://popcon2.ecchi.ca/search/ubuntuone.html
It seems it has integration with nautilus and OpenID

4.-An IRC channel exists, created by Elliot Murpy aka statik, who is member of the projects mentiones above and admin of the betatesters group

EDIT: (From an IRC conversation with statik)
4.- More info will be revealed in OSCON. The project may be functional for Karmic Koala.
5.- There is (at this moment private) beta. It'll start with Canonical employees but more people will be allowed to enter it later on.
6.- Public beta will be available soon.
7.- Canonical people want you to know about the project, but they can't tell anything ATM.

EDIT2: (From http://en.oreilly.com/oscon2009/public/schedule/detail/8843)
8.- UbuntuOne is a collection of services for ubuntu, plus a platform for developers to develop their own services on. (More info available on the link)

EDIT3: (From a ping to ubuntuone):
9.- ubuntuone.com redirects to mulberry.canonical.com

That's all for now. If you discover new stuff, post it here.

[gnomeuser]

For some reason it scares me a bit, aside that, if this is some kind of cloudish service they plan to offer. I worry about handing my data over to Canonical, not from the "being evil" stance (though I would do that slightly since I just don't trust Canonical) but just the fact that they are still not actually breaking even. I would be scared the service would be closed without warning like a few of these cloud buggers have lately taking user data with them.

[PriceChild]

Exciting :)

[gnomeuser]

Exciting :)

Agreed, I wish there would be more information. I am an information junkie (as people might have noticed, I obsessively read blogs, mailinglist.. I need to know).

I am happy there is an interest in doing cloud computing in Free Software (I am hoping the listing as proprietary is just an oversight or an temporary thing). It is an interesting space to explore and we have an unpresidently chance to integrate into the platfrom like nobody else. We should be able to be the first to make the cloud work for regular people.

[billgoldberg]

For some reason it scares me a bit, aside that, if this is some kind of cloudish service they plan to offer. I worry about handing my data over to Canonical, not from the "being evil" stance (though I would do that slightly since I just don't trust Canonical) but just the fact that they are still not actually breaking even. I would be scared the service would be closed without warning like a few of these cloud buggers have lately taking user data with them.

Canonical has money enough, they won't be going away any time soon.

If you don't trust Canonical, then why in the hell do you use their OS?

[t0p]

I feel some of the widespread doubt about "the cloud" - what if the provider shuts down, what if their security isn't up to scratch and a nasty cracker makes off with my personal details... But, despite the "what ifs", the cloud is the future of computing. So, I'm currently trying out the Firefox add-on Gmail Space - it allows you to use a Gmail account's inbox as storage space - and it isn't too bad. I can't shift my fears about security and access, so at the moment I use it just for back-ups of non-sensitive data. But the longer Gspace works out for me, the more my acceptance will grow.

The price of storage media has been coming down for a good while now, so it's not like users actually need to use Google's server. But benefits like being able to access your files no matter which computer you're using or where you happen to be, will make the cloud increasingly popular. I don't know about network apps, but I'm definitely keeping my options open.

[spcwingo]

I believe I have to agree with Richard Stallman on this one "Cloud computing is stupid". I don't see the point of having a computer that if my internet goes down (I live in central Alabama and we get plenty of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc) I can't do anything until it is fixed.

[dasunst3r]

My idea of "cloud computing" goes like this: All your information is stored on the Internet. The computer is merely a thin client with a hard disk containing the operating system. Given that, while I recognize the benefit of being able to access my data on any other computer, I don't think it's a good idea because hard disks are pretty affordable nowadays and Internet access (in the United States) is not quite as good as Japan or South Korea.

[artir]

Edit.

[JohnFH]

I believe I have to agree with Richard Stallman on this one "Cloud computing is stupid". I don't see the point of having a computer that if my internet goes down (I live in central Alabama and we get plenty of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc) I can't do anything until it is fixed.

Understated!

Why cloud computing is very stupid:
1. Relies on internet being up and also being very responsive and fast.
2. Massively increases your internet bandwidth usage, and hence also increases likelihood of it being slow.
3. More insecure than keeping your data to yourself.
4. Relies on the trustworthiness, competence and stability of the company providing the cloud computing service.

As for the perceived advantage of accessing my data from anywhere, I can do that already via my home server. I can access my data from anywhere easily without any of the disadvantages mentioned above.

[FuturePilot]

2. Massively increases your internet bandwidth usage, and hence also increases likelihood of it being slow.


And some ISPs are imposing bandwidth caps. (That's right I'm looking at you TimeWarner :mad:)
I hate cloud computing but it really makes me wonder how that would turn out. Increased bandwidth usage because of cloud computing + ISP bandwidth caps. Sounds like a disaster.

[damis648]

I probably wouldn't use it, however it's at least good that by integrating services like this Canonical is able to provide 'cloud' services to those who need them. Perhaps there may even be one which I may use, but I never plan to actually store important data by using it.

[artir]

Understated!

Why cloud computing is very stupid:
1. Relies on internet being up and also being very responsive and fast.
2. Massively increases your internet bandwidth usage, and hence also increases likelihood of it being slow.
3. More insecure than keeping your data to yourself.
4. Relies on the trustworthiness, competence and stability of the company providing the cloud computing service.

As for the perceived advantage of accessing my data from anywhere, I can do that already via my home server. I can access my data from anywhere easily without any of the disadvantages mentioned above.
1.- A home server also needs that too :)
2.-"Massively"? Ok, It's true that if you store films or stuff on the cloud it'll increase the bandwidth usage. If you use it for contacts, mail and small things, your bandwidth usage won't be too high.
3.-Partially true, but I suppose that a company that offer cloud services will have firewalls and really hard to breach systems.
4.-Don't you trust Canonical? I haven't ever looked through every single line code in Ubuntu for a line that send my personal data to them. Have you?

[billgoldberg]

1.- A home server also needs that too :)
?

Eum, no it doesn't.

Most people use their home server on the lan.

[artir]

Eum, no it doesn't.

Most people use their home server on the lan.

But if you want to use the server to do cloud-like functionality over the internet (E.g. when you are in another place and want to listen to the music stored there), you need to.

[JohnFH]

1.- A home server also needs that too :)
2.-"Massively"? Ok, It's true that if you store films or stuff on the cloud it'll increase the bandwidth usage. If you use it for contacts, mail and small things, your bandwidth usage won't be too high.
3.-Partially true, but I suppose that a company that offer cloud services will have firewalls and really hard to breach systems.
4.-Don't you trust Canonical? I haven't ever looked through every single line code in Ubuntu for a line that send my personal data to them. Have you?

2. One of the most common usages of a computer these days is to store and manipulate your digital photos. A few MB per photo = massive bandwidth use. However even for simple things like mail, contacts, etc, bandwidth usage could still be significant if you use a GUI in the cloud OS. Don't forget that your thin client will know nothing about the user interface so, in the worst case, screen images are being transferred.

3. It's completely true I'm afraid. Firewalls or not, it's still going to be more insecure than not sharing it on the web at all! Also even if their systems are hard to breach, they are not impossible and with some data, you simply can't take that risk, however small it is.

4. I trust Canonical, yes, but I don't have to at the moment. If I was using a cloud computing service from them I would have no choice but to trust them. Besides, even if I trust Canonical as a company, all it takes is for one unscrupulous employee to make use of (or publish) my data.

[gnomeuser]

Canonical has money enough, they won't be going away any time soon.

If you don't trust Canonical, then why in the hell do you use their OS?

Not making money (and currently they are not posting profits just making their revenue predictions) makes total pile of money smaller each year. Eventually even Shuttleworth' bag will dry out.

Also, who said I did, I honestly tried to but it always felt frail and bug riddled to me. Especially dpkg gets on my nerves since it seems trivially easy to get the database into a state from which it cannot recover. But I might be biased, I spend a long time being a Fedora developer and I find it hard to use a system that isn't as well designed as it is (not that Fedora is perfect by any stretch).

[zekopeko]

Not making money (and currently they are not posting profits just making their revenue predictions) makes total pile of money smaller each year. Eventually even Shuttleworth' bag will dry out.

Also, who said I did, I honestly tried to but it always felt frail and bug riddled to me. Especially dpkg gets on my nerves since it seems trivially easy to get the database into a state from which it cannot recover. But I might be biased, I spend a long time being a Fedora developer and I find it hard to use a system that isn't as well designed as it is (not that Fedora is perfect by any stretch).

you do know the man is worth around 1 billion us$ right?
that's more then the revenue of either red hat or novell and he employs far less people then red hat or novell

[billgoldberg]

Eventually even Shuttleworth' bag will dry out.

I doubt that. But Canonical can survive without Shuttleworth.




Also, who said I did,

It says so under your name.

[mips]

If you don't trust Canonical, then why in the hell do you use their OS?

I think it is safe to say that using Ubutnu is not the same as trusting some 'cloud computing' platform, if it's anyhting like that at all.

[MaxIBoy]

But if you want to use the server to do cloud-like functionality over the internet (E.g. when you are in another place and want to listen to the music stored there), you need to.


Suppose the servers are on the fritz.
Option 1: You use cloud computing. The company in charge of your service sends its IT department out to fix the server. Most likely, they will re-image the server instead of actually troubleshooting the problem (probably not destroying your files, put possibly.) In the meantime, you wait.
Option 2: You can SSH into your server and fix it. Failing that, you can SSH into your router and send a reboot signal across your home LAN (yes, most routers run Linux, and you can set them up to accept connections from the outside.)


Suppose there's a hard drive head-crash.
Option 1: You pray that your cloud-computing service has properly backed up the files.
Option 2: You rest easy in your knowledge that since you've been able to back up your files yourself, you haven't lost anything.


Suppose you've got bank account numbers, social security numbers, passwords, credit card numbers, and other private information.
Option 1: You hope that your cloud-computing service has absolutely airtight security, both physical and virtual, that all the employees of the service providers are absolutely above suspicion. Since the personal info of thousands of people is concentrated in one place, they receive hundreds of attacks every day, possibly more. (The big Internet switching stations already get thousands of attacks a day, because they're such big targets.)
Option 2: Everything is decentralized. No one target is worth attacking. You make sure that your computer is hardened with good security policies. The only one with physical access is you, and you have no incentive to steal your own data.

[artir]

bump

[BXL]

Even though I understand why companies slowly shift to thin clients (in an intranet, not the access for all internet).Personally I don't like the idea that my data is stored somewhere on the internet, that I can't access it when the internet is down (or when I can't get a working connection) or that I don't know who is having access to my stuff.

However, I think some aspects of cloud computing are very interesting, especially when it comes to very specialized applications people only use once or twice a year. For these purposes cloud computing may be a good platform to offer users access to these apps.

[frup]

With out all this talk of bank account numbers and private data breaches lets consider how a cloud could work for the community.

I can imagine a large public drive where we could all share data with each other. Imagine how that would make How-to's. Once set up you just navigate to the how-to's directory and pull the community data. Want a new wallpaper, it's already there in the cloud. Potentially this would be cool.

Imagine if that cloud drive had something matching functionality to ZFS.

The back-up problem is irrelevant... it's no different to those who don't back up properly today.

The speed/bandwidth issue is huge and why I can't imagine many people using this. My internet connection is ADSL2+ and I'm about 500m away from the substation... I easily pull 17mbps... when a server can provide that. With that connection which is about the fastest my country can provide ( and almost certainly not uniform) there is no way cloud computing could be successful. Especially since I have 6 computers in my household currently.

I'm far more into the local server mentality. The cloud isn't what I want... It's the networked appliance. I have a computer attached to my TV and stereo system for example... That's fairly common these days but something almost unimaginable 10 years ago. I would love to be able to send a networked message to my coffee machine or receive a pop up when the microwave is done and I'm in another room... Or how about seeing stats on how many times I'm using the microwave per day, how long the fridge has been open and which appliance is wasting the most power.

I would love to be able to control all the lights in my household from my computer.

Once all that is possible cloud computing might become relevant for me, because there would be all this non-important, non-permanent data I would mind having on the cloud... It's also data that could be shared through a cloud for research.

A p2p cloud would be interesting... though even less feasible.

[BXL]

But if you want to use the server to do cloud-like functionality over the internet (E.g. when you are in another place and want to listen to the music stored there), you need to.

Most people use the home server to have access to their files, not to run the OS/GUI/apps on the home server and only use a thin client laptop when they are away.

Surely, having everywhere access to your desktop and all your apps is "interesting" but it generates bandwidth, the user looses his independence and is forced to have an internet connection (at last the providers are happy).


With out all this talk of bank account numbers and private data breaches lets consider how a cloud could work for the community.

I can imagine a large public drive where we could all share data with each other. Imagine how that would make How-to's. Once set up you just navigate to the how-to's directory and pull the community data. Want a new wallpaper, it's already there in the cloud. Potentially this would be cool.
This cloud already exists, it's called Internet ;)

[frup]

This cloud already exists, it's called Internet ;)

I meant in terms of more integration with the OS and not in just terms of an RSS feed or website.

[JohnFH]

I meant in terms of more integration with the OS and not in just terms of an RSS feed or website.

I'm confused. In what way are How-to's and wallpapers integrated into the OS?

[frup]

I'm confused. In what way are How-to's and wallpapers integrated into the OS?

Well a how-to could be accessed through help menus I suppose, all from an approved public drive... almost like the repos. The thing is there is certain stuff on the OS that most people never use but needs to be there. In the / there could be a directory like /cloud and that could contain various help, themes etc... all OS specific.

But the more I think of this the more I'm confusing myself. I'm not the sort of person who wants to use applications in my OS. With GPL software often there is little point too. I can understand why people might want an online photoshop... but why do I want it when I have gimp?

I'm going to stop now.

[BXL]

Well a how-to could be accessed through help menus I suppose, all from an approved public drive... almost like the repos. The thing is there is certain stuff on the OS that most people never use but needs to be there. In the / there could be a directory like /cloud and that could contain various help, themes etc... all OS specific.

There are wikis which already offer those features, independent of the OS on the client. We also have to many different OS and GUIs, thus in the name of interoperability I don't think this approach is desirable.

[sideaway]

Cloud computing = downloading your files over and over again everytime you want to use them. and then uploading when you wish to save...

What's the firiggin point? If you wish to access your files over the internet, either host them on the internet which you can do now, OR setup a home server.
At New Zealands bandwidth rates (You have to buy bandwidth here in lil' ol' NZ) you'd have to pay about 20x as much to download a terrabyte than go and buy a TB HDD.


For all the reasons mentioned above and more, cloud computing atm, is a waste of resources (time and money).

[DoctorMO]

It's Awesome, that's all anyone needs to know.

Although I don't think that it'll earn Canonical material profits, but that's something we're going to have to see play out.

Can't say more, contract of silence and all that.

[gnomeuser]

Cloud computing = downloading your files over and over again everytime you want to use them. and then uploading when you wish to save...

What's the firiggin point? If you wish to access your files over the internet, either host them on the internet which you can do now, OR setup a home server.
At New Zealands bandwidth rates (You have to buy bandwidth here in lil' ol' NZ) you'd have to pay about 20x as much to download a terrabyte than go and buy a TB HDD.


For all the reasons mentioned above and more, cloud computing atm, is a waste of resources (time and money).

The situation you have in NZ is unlike many other places and I suspect that it won't last forever.

Now why use cloud computing in the manner you describe, computing is on the go. Your netbooks are lightweight and have little storage on those SSDs, or maybe your Internet tablet or phone.

It's about being able to access your data everywhere from any device. With great redundancy to boot, having seen a couple of harddrives die recently I personally wish that cloud computing was a more realistic option for me (i haven no doubt that it will be soon). it is reliable storage I can use how I see fit.

My email, contacts and calendar is already in the cloud sorta speak, GMail and other services take care of it and I am so happy I don't have to go back to Evolution + scripts to sync up filters and contact lists between devices.

Cloud computing is still very young, but it has a bright future that will allow us to change the face of computing. E.g. I would love to have all my music handy everywhere I go. My Sansa Fuze only stores 8GB (plus 8gb in a separate MicroSD card), but my phone as 3G access. If the bandwidth became flatrate rather than metered then I would definitely love a service where I could access the whole thing.

[Paqman]

What's the firiggin point?

Mobility. Webmail like Gmail and Hotmail is a cloud service. It's useful to be able to get your email from any computer. As bandwidth increases it's only natural that the range of tasks that can be pushed into the cloud expands. That's all cloud computing is. It's not going to replace the desktop machine, it's just going to give you greater flexibility if you want it.

[artir]

Ladies and gentleman, UbuntuOne beta invitations will be sent to all Ubuntu members in one or two hours, according to statik, who said so on the IRC.

:guitar:



IT'S COMING!