Cloud Computing

[macgyver2]

I keep hearing about and reading about this cloud computing. Now I have not read up on all the facts but if I understand things correct basically I will have a stupid terminal and all my software etc will be out on the internet someplace.

With all the mega hard drives, flash drives and laptops and other portable devices why would I use some remote service to store my stuff. For backups that works but if I have a meeting here in Orlando and a large storm takes out the net connections and I need a file to complete my sale I just lost it cause its in the "cloud".

Also how do "they" plan to keep everything secure? we all know all to well that we can't keep a simple web page secure and we want to be running programs based on cloud? This just doesn't make any sense, all my pictures and anything else I deem important is 100% safe in my hands with home and remote storage of flash or HDD. No worries that company X goes out of business or hacked and the pictures of my daughter lost forever (rest her soul and thanks for fireproof safes)

I just don't get this whole idea, maybe in some distant future when man has stopped fighting over the afterlife "religion" and destroying our home(earth) we will be able to trust such a way of using computers. I know now if I can't do something offline then its not worth doing at all cause the current state of security on the net I wouldn't trust anything I had to do cause the only sites I trust don't have much in the way of security risks.

maybe i have this all wrong, but either way security is a major issues for cloud computing and I know they are doing it with "smart phones" and I don't trust that in any shape or form. I guess I an turning into one of those people who likes the old ways or I just see major problems down the round for the cloud.

this is just a rant I had to let out. Anyone agree with me that its just way to soon for the cloud?

 

[strollin]

Everything in life is cyclic. In the early days of computing, all the apps were on the mainframe behind locked doors. IMO cloud computing is moving back toward that environment.

 

[Petey7]

Your rant just told me more than I already knew about cloud computing. It also confirmed what I though it meant. I see no problem with being able to back-up all my stuff (well, most of it) to a server, but I still want copies on an internal and external hard drive. If we ran everything off of a server, I'd spend a lot of time worrying about the safety of that data. The programs not so much, but I have some documents that I would never get over loosing. I have copies of these on my internal drive, my external drive, backed-up to two different places online, and emailed to a trusted family member. I don't trust even three methods of keeping my important data safe, so why would I trust someone else's server alone?

 

[whs]

You are asking the right questions. Especially the security and accessability aspects are iffy. On the other hand, I can see some value at the corporate level where data and applications have to be shared amongst many people spread over the whole world. Also for applications that one uses once in every blue moon. One may not want to install (and possibly pay for) that rare application.

 

[soho1]

In a nutshell:
- Poor Security (password based hackable)
- High risk (your third-party data storage company could go out of business or change the rules at anytime for it's own benefit)

Thinking back to the various places that I have worked, cloud computing has been an issue since the 80's! So I wouldn't bet the [server] farm on anyone's 5-year plan. I see cloud computing as processor-centric and storage-centric.

In the last 30 years I think a lot of progress has been made in distributed computing. In the old days the commerical goals were to find ways to use many cheap processesors rather than a few really expensive ones. That worked really well, but it's all in-house for the most part. Renting out computing power has not caught on, although you can find instances of it. In contrast, energy advances have come a lot farther and you can sell energy back to the grid from your solar-powered house if you choose not to store it.

But the meat of the cloud is storage. That's where all data is kept. Informational data has value. Valuable information should be secured. Unfortunately, the best security you have is password protection. Now if you can I can write a hack program to find someone's password, imagine what the full force of any enterprise or government could accomplish. It's downright scary.

Is cloud computing worth storing a copy of boring data files like my Windows installation? Probably not. It would not be simple to recover Windows from the web, a DVD is a much better choice.

However, secondary essential software such Adobe, Quicken, Print drivers, etc. are all fine for using the cloud as personal backups. Oh, but I can get all those now as downloads.

So what IS useful? Maybe my registred CD keys and things that are not life changing if someone on the street found them. Things like that I have found very useful to store on the web, because hard drives crash and you need to have backups (of the key values), although CD/DVD works for that too. That's not a lot of data.

If I wanted to maintain complete backups of my entire computer in the cloud, which is cheaper? Paying about $100 per year, or buying an external USB hard drive or even a home-office NAS? Hmmm, local storage wins. I can even unplug it and put it in my closet, safe or whatever.

Would I use the cloud for the convenience of automatic backups? One day, when it's reasonably secure, maybe.

 

[smarteyeball]

Everything in life is cyclic. In the early days of computing, all the apps were on the mainframe behind locked doors. IMO cloud computing is moving back toward that environment.

In a way it is kind of like moving back to having just a 'dumb terminal' instead of a complete PC / OS / Apps.

The more things change...

 

[Lordbob75]

We don't have fast enough network connects (and are unlikely to get them, at least in the US) to use cloud computing effectively.

~Lordbob

 

[fireberd]

I've been involved in networking and mainframe based applications since 1973 as a regional LAN/WAN network and hardware help desk manager for one of the US Federal Goverment agencies. I've seen it evolve from "dumb" terminals (e.g. IBM 2260 type terminals) with everything on the remote HQ mainframes, to PC's and Novell LAN systems where the applications such as MS Word, dBase, etc were on the server, to "client server" systems to now the "cloud" computing. The "corporate" cloud computing where everything is on the corporate host systems (back to the 1974 dumb terminal systems/host mainframe similar concept) would seem to be much better than outsourcing it to "company X" somewhere that is hosting cloud computing.

Thin Client systems are also on the rise. My sister-in-law works as a telephone service rep (works at home) for a health insurance company and is in the beta testing for the company's Thin Client testing. This again goes back, more or less, to the "dumb terminal" systems.

 

[AvatarOfTheShip]

IBM said that the idea of everyone in an office needing or wanting their own personal computer was ridiculous. History shows that that they were, actually, wrong. However, I once worked for a company that specialized in breaking down and rebuilding office furniture, infrastructure (networks) etc. While we were locking all those PCs in a secure office I realized that, from a logical point of view, IBM were actually correct; the idea of the personal PC is indeed, in a business environment, ridiculous - the mainframe/dumb terminal model makes MUCH more sense however you slice it, and, indeed, the server/thin client model is the continuation of this idea by other means. Cloud computing is, and always will be, a non-starter for business, both practically and legally. Civilians might get some mileage out of it, but are you really going to trust all your photos etc to Google? Didn't think so.

 

[Lordbob75]

IBM said that the idea of everyone in an office needing or wanting their own personal computer was ridiculous. History shows that that they were, actually, wrong. However, I once worked for a company that specialized in breaking down and rebuilding office furniture, infrastructure (networks) etc. While we were locking all those PCs in a secure office I realized that, from a logical point of view, IBM were actually correct; the idea of the personal PC is indeed, in a business environment, ridiculous - the mainframe/dumb terminal model makes MUCH more sense however you slice it, and, indeed, the server/thin client model is the continuation of this idea by other means. Cloud computing is, and always will be, a non-starter for business, both practically and legally. Civilians might get some mileage out of it, but are you really going to trust all your photos etc to Google? Didn't think so.

I would agree that from a business standpoint it makes a lot of sense.

But NOT for personal use (as said)

~Lordbob

 

[profdlp]

...I can see some value at the corporate level where data and applications have to be shared amongst many people spread over the whole world. Also for applications that one uses once in every blue moon...

That's the real attraction. You can have 500 (or 50,000) employees in numerous offices and buy one business license for less than building a computer for each employee. Not to mention the IT headaches when you have to patch 500 (or 50,000) machines. You can also buy cheap crap computers, all identical, and use one image for everyone. Software is permission-based and not on an install-as-needed basis.

 

[soho1]

Yes, conceptually, reducing IT costs is a HIGHLY desirable goal. But think about risk management.

You cannot hand over the keys to the kingdom based on such easily hackable password protection. The cost of business lossess from confidential information or for potential fines of exposed consumer information, depending on the business that you are in, could EASILY be 100x to 1000x any savings. Now, if you could restrict access to specific IP and Mac Addr's (which I acknowedge can be faked) in combination with password protection, you'd have a step in the right direction. Fundamentally, the issues are 1) monitoring breaches and 2) reaction time (immediate) to control access. Irate employees and foreign hackers are the same problem.

Let me know if you find cloud services that will give me reports of unusual (IP/Mac) activity on my user community accounts and what assets were accessed. I would be interested.

In the meantime, it's all fine for academic purposes and anything not mission critical. Just don't ask me to start policing employee content to make sure it's not mission critical. That equals forget it until security is decent.

 

[macgyver2]

Sounds like I am not the only one that finds this maybe a little troubling. Reason it comes to mind so much is smart phones are using it now with some of the apps and I know it won't be long before more apps get that way. Even on a phone I just can't see any privacy.

With large networks I can see how running server side apps would be cost effective but if I have someone working on lets just say secret, I would want that project on a system that isn't even connected to the outside world. When it comes to my personal stuff, my apps and my files will always be at my finger tips. I was playing a web based game today and the cable went out for a min and all I could think was if this was on my PC I wouldn't have an issue right now.