Your tech career depends on preparing for the cloud

thehappyman said:

And the Gov already wants to start regulating the Internet - Wanna Trust Them ???
Not me - ever

umm, don't know what you are talking about, but net-neutrality is a good thing, and i hope the fcc will implement it.
Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
aka, it would be a good thing, so companies like "comcast" cant decide to throttle your bandwidth or accuse the end user of major data connections.

ionbasa said:

thehappyman said:

And the Gov already wants to start regulating the Internet - Wanna Trust Them ???
Not me - ever

umm, don't know what you are talking about, but net-neutrality is a good thing, and i hope the fcc will implement it.
Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
aka, it would be a good thing, so companies like "comcast" cant decide to throttle your bandwidth or accuse the end user of major data connections.

This discussion would border on the political, so we probably shouldn't get too far into it. But I will say from a purely technical perspective that net neutrality is a very, very bad thing. It targets a problem (ISPs prioritizing certain websites according to financial agreements, which should already be prevented by antitrust regs) that does not exist. What instead gets the brunt of the impact are the practices that ISPs currently use to ensure adequate speed and performance for the majority of their users, say by throttling (or temporarily boosting) very large downloads.

I have to say, I use Comcast and I am always very careful to stay within the 250GB/month bandwidth limit because I share my connection with other people in my district. I know I would get very upset if my connection speed was forced down to 0.001Mbps for a day because someone else in my district was downloading the entire collection of Star Trek over the web.

Net neutrality will take those "major data connections" and force ISPs to put them in the same bandwidth allotment that typical everyday connections currently occupy, and it will be a disaster.

Actually when you think about it what would be bad if only the OS was on the cloud, but ALL DATA was stored local and unreachable to the cloud?

ionbasa said:

Actually when you think about it what would be bad if only the OS was on the cloud, but ALL DATA was stored local and unreachable to the cloud?

I'm honestly not sure what the point of that would be. First of all, the local data would have to be reachable from the cloud, else it wouldn't really be an OS at all. Second, why would you want the OS on the cloud at all? With all your data stored locally, what would be the purpose of having to access the Internet to get into the OS? What could the OS possibly do that it can't do just fine the way it is now?

BCXtreme said:

ionbasa said:

Actually when you think about it what would be bad if only the OS was on the cloud, but ALL DATA was stored local and unreachable to the cloud?

I'm honestly not sure what the point of that would be. First of all, the local data would have to be reachable from the cloud, else it wouldn't really be an OS at all. Second, why would you want the OS on the cloud at all? With all your data stored locally, what would be the purpose of having to access the Internet to get into the OS? What could the OS possibly do that it can't do just fine the way it is now?

Well that means that if you customized your OS you could access it at any computer connected to the Internet, but you could not access the data. I think I made a somwhat stupid coment because I just realized why that would be useless, but what if corporations managed their own "private" cloud for use only on their network?