Your tech career depends on preparing for the cloud

[lehnerus2000]

The End Of "Personal Computing"

No, actually a truly right-wing administration wouldn't change that law to begin with. A left-wing administration's excuse would be something along the lines of Apple's "to ensure an experience of equal quality for all users" (slightly paraphrased).

By that definition, when was the last time the US had a "truly right-wing administration"?

Ordinary people have to justify their existence (in the Economy) by how productive they are.
Politicians justify their existence by causing chaos (or indulging in dubious behaviour).
Many politicians point to how many pages of legislation they have introduced, as proof that they are necessary to society.

And incidentally, this behavior is currently illegal in the United States, because it falls under antitrust laws. Intentionally limiting compatibility of your products so that they will only work with your (or your "preferred partners'") other products is considered anti-competitive behavior.
...
Microsoft, however, got in big trouble in the U.S. for doing stuff much less overt than this in the 1990s.

There is a difference. In the 1990s people owned their own infrastructure (PC and storage).

Once people swap to "dumb" terminals and sign "Cloud" provider agreements, they will be screwed.
The "Cloud" providers own the infrastructure and therefore can dictate what service(s) will be provided.
You can't go to Taco Bell(?) and demand a "Big Mac".

A right-wing administration would not change those laws simply because they have no need to (in case you haven't noticed, increased government control is not currently on right-wing politicians' wish lists).

That's not correct (that is their stated position).
DMCA
(Bill Clinton (D) - Republican House & Senate Majorities)
Patriot Act
(George Bush (R) - Republican House Majority, Alternating Senate Majorities)

ALL politicians want more power.

A left-wing administration would probably like the idea, but they would never want "Big Business" to have that kind of power, they'd want it for themselves.

Agreed.
One last point in this rant, politicians of BOTH parties are funded by corporations.

But now we're getting a little off-topic. Regardless of any political situations, laws, regulations, courts, or anything else, entirely cloud-based computing is a bad idea. Local storage is cheaper and faster than cloud storage, and it's also much more secure. If my data is stored locally, then I know I have pretty much 100% control over both the data itself and what parties are allowed to access it.

Agreed.
The "Cloud" (if successful) will lead to the end of "Personal Computing".

On the other hand, on the cloud, with my data stored on servers right along with the data of everyone else and their mothers, any of whom could have anyone else and their mothers out to get them, with security software and protocols controlled by the cloud company (probably via various "financial agreements" with Norton, McAfee, or whoever) rather than hand-picked and hand-configured by me, not to mention the ever-present and cloud-champion-to-be advertising company Google (and others) determined to present me with "tailored advertisements" by using my data to learn "what I want to see" ... well, would you be eager to put every scrap of data you possess, no matter how sensitive, into that environment?!

Agreed.
"Minority Report" syndrome anyone?

"You can have my PC and Data when you prise it from my cold dead hands."
Apologies to Charlton Heston.

 

[Frank1]

There is an on-line backup service that I hear advertised called Carbonite. I'm sure it's legitimate and reputable. But isn't that something close to Cloud Computing?

 

[mr pc]

The more I hear about Cloud Computing, the more I dislike it. I prefer to have my stuff stored on my computer that's in my house. But I don't know too much about it so I'll just wait and see.

You already know enough.

The alternative is the exact opposite to your statement.
There is no more to know about it.

It is not just your stuff - it is your operating system as well. You might have a computer or internet tv with Google software (geared towards Cloud no doubt), but that's it - the essence of your personal computing will be held by someone else.

And concerning Open Source - I guarantee it would be limited, you don't see much of it in the corporate world now. I've never seen an office using more than Open Office and that was one scenario. Oh Zimbra and that was shit - solidifying the fact that Open Source (no matter how reliable and productive) is not to be trusted.

The Cloud Providers will have rules for their hardware/software operations and this will effect how the end user approaches their personal computing and the government will have little clout (or not care) what the Cloud Provider decides in the name of security.

Personally I see Open Source as the competition to Cloud computing (freedom of choice, freedom of usage, freedom of speech), so I'm a little paranoid.

Will someone be able to use FF in Chrome considering Chrome IS the Browser/OS?

 

[BCXtreme]

By that definition, when was the last time the US had a "truly right-wing administration"?

Ordinary people have to justify their existence (in the Economy) by how productive they are.
Politicians justify their existence by causing chaos (or indulging in dubious behaviour).
Many politicians point to how many pages of legislation they have introduced, as proof that they are necessary to society.

To be honest, we haven't had a real right-wing administration in a long time. We've had a couple of mostly right-wing administrations.

There is a difference. In the 1990s people owned their own infrastructure (PC and storage).

Once people swap to "dumb" terminals and sign "Cloud" provider agreements, they will be screwed.
The "Cloud" providers own the infrastructure and therefore can dictate what service(s) will be provided.
You can't go to Taco Bell(?) and demand a "Big Mac".

That's true, but you can go to McDonalds and demand a Big Mac. For the entire industry to move over to entirely cloud computing would be better described as "You can only go to Taco Bell, regardless of what food you really want."

That's not correct (that is their stated position)
DMCA
(Bill Clinton (D) - Republican House & Senate Majorities)
Patriot Act
(George Bush (R) - Republican House Majority, Alternating Senate Majorities)

ALL politicians want more power.

I take serious issue with the comparison of those two laws to each other, let alone to your claim that either is about government power. But since political discussions are not allowed on this forum, I'm not going to lecture you on it.

Agreed.
One last point in this rant, politicians of BOTH parties are funded by corporations.

That's true. As I said before, this discussion can't become political, but I will say this: the difference is that one party openly acknowledges and defends corporate support, and the other is hypocritically deflecting attention from it while taking the money anyway.

Agreed.
The "Cloud" (if successful) will lead to the end of "Personal Computing".

And this is why I think the cloud as a universal concept will inevitably fail, because it's not a step forward, it's a very large and heavy step backward.

Agreed.
"Minority Report" syndrome anyone?

"You can have my PC and Data when you prise it from my cold dead hands."
Apologies to Charlton Heston.

Yes, exactly. Once again, "pleasant connotations." I really don't think anyone out there is going to go for an entirely cloud-based IT world once they realize what that actually means (right now it's such an unexplored and nebulous concept that it's not really concerning anyone).

 

[Colonel Travis]

Will someone be able to use FF in Chrome considering Chrome IS the Browser/OS?

No. You can't do doodly squat unless Google says you can. If George Orwell were alive today he'd be making fun of that company in a book.

 

[BCXtreme]

Will someone be able to use FF in Chrome considering Chrome IS the Browser/OS?

No. You can't do doodly squat unless Google says you can. If George Orwell were alive today he'd be making fun of that company in a book.

I'm not sure how you reconcile that statement with the open platform Android.

 

[mr pc]

touche - sorta

Android may be an impressive mobile computing option but does it support cross-platform apps from Apple or MS?

As universal and etheral this Cloud gig is, it will still have it's divisions, very competitive and unforgiving divisions.

 

[lehnerus2000]

My apologies to anyone offended by my ranting.

That's true, but you can go to McDonalds and demand a Big Mac. For the entire industry to move over to entirely cloud computing would be better described as "You can only go to Taco Bell, regardless of what food you really want."

You'll be able to go to:

• Microsoft's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply MS Office (for a nominal subscription fee).
• Google's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply Google Docs (for a nominal subscription fee).
• Apple's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply iWorks (for a nominal subscription fee).

You probably won't be able to demand Open Office from any of them.

As long as their contracts don't specify that you can't also sign up to a competitor's service, they aren't infringing on your freedom of choice.
When you buy a Ford, you don't sign a contract saying that you can't also buy a GM (that would be illegal).

I take serious issue with the comparison of those two laws to each other, let alone to your claim that either is about government power.

My bad explanation/phrasing (one benefits corporations, the other increases the scope of enforcement).
All laws have to be enforced by the Government.

My apologies to anyone offended by my ranting.
Shutting up now.

And this is why I think the cloud as a universal concept will inevitably fail, because it's not a step forward, it's a very large and heavy step backward.

Agreed.
However, it's success won't be based on the opinions of rational people (such as SevenForums members).

It will be determined by the success of the slick advertising campaigns.
Can they convince enough ignorant consumers to buy in?

This section will cover most of the screen (with pictures of smiling consumers to make everyone feel comfortable).
"It's so convenient."
"You can store all of your personal data on our servers and access it from anywhere for a small monthly fee."
"Don't worry about security we'll take care of it for you."

ThIs section will appear on the bottom of the screen in 4pt font (for maybe 1 or 2 seconds).
Fine Print:
"We are not responsible for the security of your data."
"We reserve the right to share your data with whomever we see fit."
​

Yes, exactly. Once again, "pleasant connotations." I really don't think anyone out there is going to go for an entirely cloud-based IT world once they realize what that actually means (right now it's such an unexplored and nebulous concept that it's not really concerning anyone).

Various companies are betting $M that there are enough naive (or stupid) consumers, to make the concept a success.

If that doesn't work they will lobby Congress (and/or clog up the courts) claiming piracy or illegal/unfair trade practices by their non-"Cloud"-based competitors.
Hardly a week goes by without some technology company suing another (IMO, on very tenuous grounds in most cases).

 

[smarteyeball]

If they don't, do not resort to "pleasant connotations" in order to trick them into supporting you/it. It's dishonest.

It's not dishonest. It's called 'marketing'

If George Orwell were alive today he'd be making fun of that company in a book.

He'd also be eloquently saying "I told you so".


The simple fact is - there will be varying tiers of consumers who will embrace this new technology, regardless of it's implementation while conversely there will be others who loathe it.

Either way - the 'cloud' is not going to dissipate any time soon

 

[ionbasa]

It's not dishonest. It's called 'marketing'

agreed, they will try to get the target consumer to buy, it not rely dishonest if the target consumer knows what he/she wants. In other words it good to not be ignorant, eg. you get pulled over for a speeding ticket, the cop asks you do you know what the speed limit was, you say no. He tells you ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[BCXtreme]

touche - sorta

Android may be an impressive mobile computing option but does it support cross-platform apps from Apple or MS?

As universal and etheral this Cloud gig is, it will still have it's divisions, very competitive and unforgiving divisions.

Is that question rhetorical? Because last time it checked, it supports cross-platform just as well as Windows or Linux. From what I've heard it's a very simple matter to compile an existing Java or Flash program into an Android format. Any platform, including Windows and Linux, usually requires some small amount of modification to make it compatible, although frameworks like Java and Flash offer some simpler solutions.

You'll be able to go to:

• Microsoft's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply MS Office (for a nominal subscription fee).
• Google's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply Google Docs (for a nominal subscription fee).
• Apple's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply iWorks (for a nominal subscription fee).

You probably won't be able to demand Open Office from any of them.

This is what the problem would be. This is why I said it would be like only being allowed to go to Taco Bell. Maybe a better description would be "You can only go to places that sell tacos." This shift would be in effect saying, "You can't develop or deploy any software for any platform without making a special financial arrangement with the platform creator." It would also create an oligopoly in any software markets (such as office packages) that the platform creators maintain products in. If you recall, Microsoft got in trouble because (among other reasons) it was suspected that they were intentionally making it difficult to install alternative programs (other media players, browsers, etc) on Windows PCs; it didn't matter to the courts that you could simply buy another OS like Mac and get different options.

My bad explanation/phrasing (one benefits corporations, the other increases the scope of enforcement).
All laws have to be enforced by the Government.

My apologies to anyone offended by my ranting.
Shutting up now.

If you've ever studied American government, you know that the part of our government that is in charge of that enforcement is the executive branch (the White House and the bureaucracy). In that entire branch, the only two people that can really be considered politicians are the President and Vice President, and they don't make the laws (at least they're not supposed to). Congress makes the laws, and if the only people getting more power from the law is the bureaucracy, then the politicians who made the law (Congress) isn't really gaining any power. Basically, enforcement != power. Decision-making authority = power. Neither the DMCA nor the Patriot Act gave the government more decision-making authority. The DMCA has to be enforced mainly by corporations through civil suits, and the Patriot Act increased the ability of the government to collect intelligence (it doesn't really change or increase what they can do with that intelligence).

Disclaimer: The above was not written as any kind of political statement and should not be considered as such. It's a factual analysis of the workings of a legal system, no different that what any school would teach.

Agreed.
However, it's success won't be based on the opinions of rational people (such as SevenForums members).

It will be determined by the success of the slick advertising campaigns.
Can they convince enough ignorant consumers to buy in?

This section will cover most of the screen (with pictures of smiling consumers to make everyone feel comfortable).
"It's so convenient."
"You can store all of your personal data on our servers and access it from anywhere for a small monthly fee."
"Don't worry about security we'll take care of it for you."

ThIs section will appear on the bottom of the screen in 4pt font (for maybe 1 or 2 seconds).
Fine Print:
"We are not responsible for the security of your data."
"We reserve the right to share your data with whomever we see fit."​

What you're saying is very true. However, as time goes on, I think we're beginning to talk about different things. I'm not talking about a situation where the line is "You can store all of your personal data on our servers..." I'm talking about a situation where the line is "You have to store all of your personal data on our servers...", because every available OS has gone completely cloud-based and dropped support for local storage. One says "the cloud will be a part of the future", and I agree, it will be probably for a short time. Another says "the cloud will BE the future", and I disagree.

Either way, I think the whole thing is going to fall apart as soon as one hacker or a team of hackers cracks one of the servers and steals 150,000 identities at once, or secretly swipes data to pass on to potential stalkers (for a fee of course).
​

Various companies are betting $M that there are enough naive (or stupid) consumers, to make the concept a success.

If that doesn't work they will lobby Congress (and/or clog up the courts) claiming piracy or illegal/unfair trade practices by their non-"Cloud"-based competitors.
Hardly a week goes by without some technology company suing another (IMO, on very tenuous grounds in most cases).

I think it's the non-cloud-based companies that will sue the cloud-based companies first, especially if the cloud-based companies are the ones that Microsoft and Apple that will have the ability to completely close the entire platform with a light switch.

It's not dishonest. It's called 'marketing'

agreed, they will try to get the target consumer to buy, it not rely dishonest if the target consumer knows what he/she wants. In other words it good to not be ignorant, eg. you get pulled over for a speeding ticket, the cop asks you do you know what the speed limit was, you say no. He tells you ignorance is not an excuse.

First of all, dishonesty is dishonesty regardless of what anyone else knows. Either way, in this particular case, we are talking about the target consumer not really knowing what he/she wants because the company is not telling the truth. It's like ... buying an iPad because Apple told you (or strongly implied) that it was a microwave, and you needed a microwave. I guarantee you the iPad's impressive sales are not due to a pleasant-sounding name. It's selling well because "large-screen, easy-to-use tablet" (or "giant iPhone" if you're a critic) happens to be something that people want. Using "cloud" in a way that means "hosted services" is fine. Using "cloud" in a way that totally disassociates it with "hosted services", because the public didn't go for "hosted services" and you're just giving it a new name, is false advertising as far as I'm concerned. How would you feel if Microsoft took Windows XP SP1 on stage at CES and said "So today we're going to show this to you, and this is Windows 8, it's an entirely new OS like nothing we've done before"??

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Of interest to all industry will be this new era of security in the cloud.
WikiLeaks Imbroglio Renews Focus on Risk Management
I may be in the minority but the concept of the Cloud is good but it's execution and reality scare the hell out of me!

 

[Colonel Travis]

Will someone be able to use FF in Chrome considering Chrome IS the Browser/OS?

No. You can't do doodly squat unless Google says you can. If George Orwell were alive today he'd be making fun of that company in a book.

I'm not sure how you reconcile that statement with the open platform Android.

Android ain't a defense. That's like saying Cuba is a peachy country because of Blau Costa Verde Beach Resort.

SKorean police say Google collects personal info

Google balances privacy, reach

Personal Information for Thousands Exposed in Google Cache

Google grabs personal information from Wi-Fi networks

Google's Business Reason for Leaving China

Going Public Scrutiny: Google's Unusual IPO Plans Raise Questions

All these and more are exactly why everyone should question the cloud.

 

[Tepid]

That is why I say, time to start learning Linux.

Linux is a free OS that can't be contained in such a manner.

If full on Cloud computing does become a reality, Linux will be the only safeguard alternative.

If we as techs must produce a real alternative, it is up to us to make sure that alternative exists and that we can handle supporting it and marketing it.

I am a Microsoft guy only because that is what I really know, and that is what is used most.
I am not afraid to jump ship if need be.

 

[BCXtreme]

No. You can't do doodly squat unless Google says you can. If George Orwell were alive today he'd be making fun of that company in a book.

I'm not sure how you reconcile that statement with the open platform Android.

Android ain't a defense. That's like saying Cuba is a peachy country because of Blau Costa Verde Beach Resort.

SKorean police say Google collects personal info

Google balances privacy, reach

Personal Information for Thousands Exposed in Google Cache

Google grabs personal information from Wi-Fi networks

Google's Business Reason for Leaving China

Going Public Scrutiny: Google's Unusual IPO Plans Raise Questions

All these and more are exactly why everyone should question the cloud.

I agree with you. But not one of those articles backs up your original statement. Your statement wasn't simply that Google is a potentially dangerous company (if it was, I would've agreed). Yeah, there are serious privacy concerns with Google, but that's a separate issue from whether their platforms are open or closed. Would I trust Google to host my data securely? No. Would I buy an Android device to take advantage of the openness of the platform? Yes. Does that mean my feelings towards Google are positive? No.

Yeah, you can't say Cuba is a peachy country because of its resorts. But you can say it has peachy resorts. Doesn't mean you feel any different about Cuba. You're not obligated to say that Cuban resorts stink just for consistency.

In summary:

Google privacy = bad.
Google openness = good.

Out of all the major companies, I would trust Google the most to refrain from limiting software options on a cloud OS. But I would trust them the least to provide adequate privacy and security.

 

[Colonel Travis]

Your statement wasn't simply that Google is a potentially dangerous company (if it was, I would've agreed).

I didn't say Google is dangerous, potentially or otherwise. I said was that Orwell would make fun of Google. The man wrote a lot more than 1984.

You keep going back to Android, which I never even brought up. I own an Android phone and love it. But Android is 180 degrees from the Chrome OS, which is somewhat Orwellian, which is what I was talking about. It was asked here if you could use FF with Chrome. No. What else can you not do with the Chrome OS?

You can't run programs from your PC if you're offline.
You can't store Chrome data on your PC.
You can't update Chrome OS programs.
You can't install software on a Chrome OS.
You can't even download Android apps and install them on Chrome
You can't do squat with Chrome OS unless Google says you can.

You call that open?

 

[Frank1]

I've been doing a little reading about this so-called Cloud Computing when a thought occurred to me: Lets say that I subscribe to it and all of my personal data is out there some place. Then let's say that I die (which I will some day). Then let's say that I authorized no one to access my data. What happens to all that stuff out there---somewhere???????:huh:

 

[Colonel Travis]

That's an excellent question, Frank. Never even thought of that.

 

[Buddahfan]

I'm not sure how you reconcile that statement with the open platform Android.

Android ain't a defense. That's like saying Cuba is a peachy country because of Blau Costa Verde Beach Resort.

SKorean police say Google collects personal info

Google balances privacy, reach

Personal Information for Thousands Exposed in Google Cache

Google grabs personal information from Wi-Fi networks

Google's Business Reason for Leaving China

Going Public Scrutiny: Google's Unusual IPO Plans Raise Questions

All these and more are exactly why everyone should question the cloud.

I agree with you. But not one of those articles backs up your original statement. Your statement wasn't simply that Google is a potentially dangerous company (if it was, I would've agreed). Yeah, there are serious privacy concerns with Google, but that's a separate issue from whether their platforms are open or closed. Would I trust Google to host my data securely? No. Would I buy an Android device to take advantage of the openness of the platform? Yes. Does that mean my feelings towards Google are positive? No.

Yeah, you can't say Cuba is a peachy country because of its resorts. But you can say it has peachy resorts. Doesn't mean you feel any different about Cuba. You're not obligated to say that Cuban resorts stink just for consistency.

In summary:

Google privacy = bad.
Google openness = good.

Out of all the major companies, I would trust Google the most to refrain from limiting software options on a cloud OS. But I would trust them the least to provide adequate privacy and security.

The same can said for their baseball players and cigars

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Frank then that would depend on if you've been good or bad. If good then your info goes up to white fluffy heavenly clouds were your information is free to roam and be safe. But if you've been bad then it goes down to a very dirty cloud and your information is then shared with others in the cloud from hell.