What is your take on cloud computing

[lonewolf]

I have thought and considered the idea of cloud computing. It is being pushed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Although it seems this is the way we are being pushed my initial feeling is not to trust this.

Not to spread FUD but does it not seem that as the cloud grows more and more private company servers will eventually come off line and the major server farms will be the only game in town.

So I wondered, how many different companies would be left that could eventually control all of the world's information on their servers? How safe and secure would that information be?

This is just something I thought I would kick around to see what the response would be.

[DNR]

The internet is inherently insecure, anytime you have to rely on machines to pass data, each machine is a potential risk. Even more so, when you do not own the machine - to inspect it.

Cloud computing is still not perfect. Remember when google was down for a day? What if you had important company docs there? Besides outage, you just can't trust machines that are not yours. Rumors of bogus data storage companies that offer low rates for hosting and data storage - then they mine the data for their own conversion, looting account numbers, personal identity, or hold the data hostage. Maybe you'll wake up and read the newspaper about your ISP being brought out by another company - one that works for your competitors. Any machine passing data from your network to the internet can be compromised, and you'll be the last to know.

You don't own the cloud, and you get what you pay for.

Even storing data online, you still want to back up to a media you can hold in your hand.

DNR

[lilrofl]

to quote the late George Carlin, "even a lava lamp is greater then sliced bread"... and I feel the same unimpressed lack of emotion toward cloud computing.

I think that DNR makes good points about the security of a machine you do not own, and how it is more likely to be compromised simple because it holds data for multiple users, however my distrust od the technology does not end there.

I think that right now it is safe to say that if Google wants something, then it is not in our best interest. They are quickly becoming the big brother we all heard about in the 90's... any one who doubts this should research their stance on net neutrality and correct me if they find I am wrong.

My main issue with cloud computing is that, in the beginning it will probably be convenient, affordable, and user friendly. I think you will be hard pressed to find serious issue with it. It is because of this the medium and large companies will find it more cost effective, and be easily swayed to switch to a cloud, rather then paying to host and maintain their ownn servers.

When cloud computing is 'the norm' however, I think the host will have enough control to start issuing rules that benefit their goals and objectives, contrary to the wants of their users. For example, if your data is stored on someone else's server, who owns intellectual property rights... and who owns physical property rights? Also what is to keep a cloud owner from denying the storage of data that they find against their goals and objectives? What happens then you ask?

Not a complete control of the media... but pretty close me thinks.

just my .02

[DNR]

Expanding on lilrofl

So google takes over server farms and running the internet. Soon, they redact documents about how the internet works, use propriety codes that are restricted from the public - now you have the Internet really belonging to google.

People will accept cloud computing as the standard. They will accept that people like google will be marketing their data, they will accept that email and files are never theirs, and they will be more like sheep. blind and dumb.

The best thing about the internet was it gave access to individuals like Suck-O. If google owns the internet, they could very well say that Suck-O violates the 'internet" TOS, and would never exist. We had wardialing, BBS, and now forums like this. Just like the pharmaceutical companies, the oil companies, gas, electric, even food companies - they monopolize their sector and they own it. Once they own it, they will nickle and dime you, and steal your shit.

I just feel that cloud computing will lead to dummy terminals in people's homes and offices. Just a monitor and keyboard dumbass.

DNR

[lilrofl]

DNR, that is exactly what I'm talking about, how long until the server owners can rewrite the rules and find you in violation of an Internet TOS... the thought, frankly, sickens me... and that is why I am against large scale cloud computing perpetuated by super companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple and the like.

[bad_brain]

it only makes sense in a local area network for big companies for example, this is done since a long time already just without that fancy "cloud" name....it's the good old server/client-architecture: a powerful server which provides the applications and does the work, and users are connected to it via thin clients.

for internet use it's just another way of grabbing private data imo.

[lilrofl]

I agree with that as well b_b, in most applications I don't have a problem with the cloud, in fact I have a small server at home that I can grab data from when needed, it's only when the cloud used by the majority is owned by a monopoly company that I have issue... and basically I've just become paranoid about Google's cloud OS, and their intentions for building it.

[bad_brain]

I wouldn't label that paranoia, because google is known for 2 things: private data grabbing and censorship. I would never put my data into the hands of someone known for this.

[floodhound2]

I think cloud computing is great as long as its your server that is the cloud. Personal cloud servers all the way .

So much can happen if a cooperation owns the cloud. Could you imagine that some time in the near future a Terrorist will hijack a cloud server and hold it for ransom.

[DNR]

flood - or a innocuous attack on google - how many businesses would be affected? So far the US has been lucky with no fire sale on the internet.

fire sale? thats everything -

in the Backroom, I posted the overseas to USA connection points.
You can find these buildings and they dont have DHS security.

Go for the hardware and the software at these points - see what a black out means.
Since cellphones can piggy back now on internet routes - you lose your phones too.

DNR

[floodhound2]

I could not imagine the devastation that could come about from this. We are so connected to our frail networks and in so deep already that a big fuck up may do some serious damage. If cooperations single out and actually own our networks, data and digital content in general, the results will be devastating! All one has to do is look at big banks and other monopoly's. The cheats / crooks are everywhere cutting corners and before we know it a computer melt down.

DNR nailed it in his first post. When you do not own the machine - you cant to inspect it.

[Lyecdevf]

I read some where that soon we may not need to have gaming computers at home to play games. We are just going to connect to our cloud computer and play games there. Sounds great does not it!!! But how much would that cost? My gaming computer has 4GB of DDR2 RAM with an overclocked E7500 and my GPU has 512MB of GDDR5 RAM!!! How much would some thing like that cost in a cloud computer???

[Lundis]

Lyec: I find that very unlikely considering that the latest games requires the latest hardware to run perfect and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Also you'd have to send all game data over the network, which would mean that all the graphics drawing data that's normally sent between the memory and graphics card would have to be sent over the network. Looking at some numbers, this would mean that you'd need a 192.4GB/s inet connection to play a game as well as a nvidia geforce 580 card.

I'm not saying you couldn't greatly reduce the amount of data that needs to be transferred, but it's just not worth it imo

edit: I realized you could just send the pixel data as well, then it'd be for instance (amount of pixels * bytes/pixel) 1680 * 1050 * 4 B/s = 6 MB/s. But there'll be a very annoying latency you probably wouldn't like... ^^