Is the Cloud overrated?

[the_leander]

Cloud computing from a business perspective makes sense in some cases.

Even from a home user there maybe applications for it (offsite backups, for instance).

That said, I would never, ever trust it, recently on slashdot there was a story about how games using the steam content management system going down - the result was a good many people suddenly couldn't access their own games as they wouldn't start if they can't phone home.

Now imagine that instead of it being a game, it's your documents, basic applications etc.

It also means that you're absolutely dependant on having a net connection present at all times. No deal for me given that I'm on a HSDPA connection, but even on a fixed line I'd be hesitent.

Having offsite backup is great, having multiple backups is better. But having the whole system hanging off of it? No thanks.

I have in the past used what might be considered a "cloud" application, or at least one tied to the cloud - a piece of software called Celtx, which I used for helping in the development of a comic (which was eventually scrapped as it happens) between myself and a couple of others. In this role it worked well. But the application itself was one that you installed on the local drive and could be used standalone as well as online. For colaborative works, the cloud makes a little more sense.

[the_leander]

It's one thing to trust a company to take care of your needs for a price, it's another to have no choice but to get by paying companies just to use your machine. Pay attention to this distinction. Cut a line in the sand. You own your machine and the shit thats on it, for now.

/thread

[the_leander]

Why would i pay to store my data when i can buy 1 TB for under $100,

And what happens if for instance, you're flooded out, or your gear stolen?

Multiple backups in multiple locations are a good thing.

[the_leander]

No, some of them printed text out on paper slowly instead.


I think that's what it is, but i'm not sure. I've not used it in a while (no need). No wikipedia usage at any point in this argument; but given that you're accusing me of this, I'm guessing you're guilty?

You know what they say about making assumptions.

The kernel is XNU. Forked from Mach, uses a lot of BSD code in there. They are not the same.

I'm pretty certain he has stated that not once, but twice.

To me this just comes off as you playing a game of semantics to try to score points.

Well I do, and you don't.

Again, to everyone here reading this thread, it's clear this fella knows his stuff, that's not to say you don't.

Actually this whole thing just comes off like a clash of personalities.

I mean sure, its funny as hell watching you two rip on each other. But I don't think either one of you has enough of an advantage over the other to get anything other then a pyrrhic victory out of this.

gb2gbs

No U.

See, I can do memes as well!

(MODERATED: Image removed per user complaint.)

[the_leander]

I believe the future of the cloud, for businesses and the consumer, is in hybrid applications, that are both native and available over the web, that store data locally as well as synchronise when on-line, with strong encryption and security and practically unlimited online storage(for a price).

There are examples of this already - Celtx is a good one that I've used personally with a reasonable amount of success.

I suspect some applications will remain always tied to local machines simply because it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to do otherwise.

Do not make the mistake of imagining that access and bandwidth in the future will be as limited as it is today. Bandwidth is increasing exponentially, and the amount of data points, at a minimum, around major cities will increase. You may lament you have limited access or speed right now, but this is unlikely to be the case in 10 years time. Today's cable and ADSL connections will feel like 56k baud modems popular in the 90s.

True enough, but at the same time, some applications simply don't make sense to have only as online.

But let me take my view of the future much further. With web applications becoming increasingly ubiquitous, we will find many new Web based desktops taking advantage of native code compilation and graphics acceleration. These will relegate the OS to a layer that merely runs applications launched by URLs that in turn open browser based windows. To all intents and purposes web desktops/Window managers, customised to your own usage, will appear to perform as efficiently as regular desktops do today, on any system anywhere you are in the world. The era of the native desktop as a necessity or differentiating factor may end some time in this decade.

This is where we disagree I think. Like I said earlier and agree with you - hybrid apps for some things make a whole lot of sense. The moment however you dump that to do online only is the moment you become absolutely dependant upon not only the companies not screwing you over, but that the connections are available at all times.

The moment you loose that immediacy of availability, it falls on it's backside as an option for most users. Sure, people will try it, some people might even like it. What's more likely though is you'll end up with a situation similar to that which was seen with the launch of Vista: People going en masse to get XP put on those machines.

The major driver for Cloud computing is business and their desire to provide SaaS(Software As A Service) so they can pick up regular licensing fees and curb piracy. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this model which continues to keep the IT industry afloat, not to mention keep me and many, many developers in a job.

I see the companies pushing for this certainly and for the reasons stated. I can also see a lot of other companies dismissing it out of hand due to data protection and privacy laws. Others will baulk at the prices and find non cloud smaller commercial or open source alternatives to pick up where MS leaves off. Having all apps on the cloud simply does not make sense from either a business or home user point of view.

[the_leander]

CITRIX!

That is what the library I work at uses.  Its kind of pathetic though...  They still ass it up using that.  and then me, the lowly part time page/college student has to go and fix things all the time, lol.  

Ahh yes, Citrix. Oh how I would like to shake the developers of that particular piece of software by the balls...

I once worked in a call centre for a well known (some might say infamous) chain of PC and electrical stores. We all had dumb terminals.

If you were to take an A1200, crank up the colour depth to 256 colours, set the resolution to doublePAL highres with maximum overscan, you would get an idea of just how slow these things were. And this was before you actually tried to do anything with them. Oh and they were forever locking up.

Oh how I hated those systems.

cloud will work out great for people like that who need the dumbest-possible-terminal machine they can be sat in front of.  It will give businesses more peace of mind that their workers aren't tarding up the machines and causing loss of productivity.

It just moves the problems rather then solves them. Ultimately you end up with a single point of failure that can take down your entire network and you and I both know that sooner rather then later, that'll happen. Most companies I've worked for that have played with dumb terminals have ended up dumping them and buying full blown desktops that are then locked down in every way possible. They just aren't effective.

[the_leander]

The one advantage we have today, though, over the old systems is that of the Cluster. If one server of say three goes does down, then it doesn't matter as the connections fail over to the remaining two. Naturally if there is only one server, then everything goes down with it. A smart System Designer would not build a cloud on a single server but on a cluster of at least two servers.

I can only give you my own first hand experiences. The company that I worked for that ran these things had nothing but trouble with them. They were awful.

Every time I read about some company or other bringing terminals in, you can almost guarantee that within a year they'll go back to the more common PC/Server system. They are junk, even the new shiny expensive ones.

@persia, that's the point, not everyone's computers/phones etc are on all the time, nor are servers that host these things on all the time (see slashdot every time a game service goes down). The internet as a whole may well be ubiquitous. But individual services generally speaking aren't, when they go down, everyone relying on it goes down with them. As far as my own systems go,  I have a very good idea what apps go online and which don't. As someone who uses a mobile connection I absolutely have to be aware as bandwidth through this medium is set on a monthly basis per payment (£15=3Gb or £25=7Gb). Having some application sucking down bandwidth very quickly gets noticed. As for phones, well not all of us are blessed with an iPhone. My Tocco Lite, whilst net capable (and actually fairly good at it) is very very rarely online.