Cloud computing sucks c---

Whatever gains were made by faster computers in the last 10 years have been
erased by the time it takes to "talk" to programs on distant servers.
Cloud computer proves one thing, you can't cut costs beyond reason and
expect the same efficiency.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:10:33 -0500, Rich wrote:

Whatever gains were made by faster computers in the last 10 years have
been erased by the time it takes to "talk" to programs on distant
servers. Cloud computer proves one thing, you can't cut costs beyond
reason and expect the same efficiency.

These things tend to go in cycles. It used to be one computer and many
dumb terminals. Then the early personal type computers got going. Then
GUIs became popular - for a while it was quite the rage to have one
computer and several 'smart' terminals or Xterms. So, we go back and
forth between one computer with several users and the concept of (at
least) one computer per user.

I don't see any particular reason you would think you'd be forced to
participate if you don't wish to - just keep all your 'stuff' locally.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Cloud computing is a waste of time.

nonsense.

Today's computers are not limited by processor or memory speeds for the vast
majority of applications. The real limitations are disk access times and
network speeds. Disk access times have not significantly improved in decades,

like hell they haven't. disks today are significantly faster than disks
just a few years ago, nevermind decades.

and network speeds are being held down artificially by telecom companies (but
even if they were not held down, they'd be no match for the rest of a computer
system).

nonsense and irrelevant.

Storing data in a cloud is several orders of magnitude less efficient than
storing it on magnetic tape,

magnetic tape??? really? that's the best you can do?

and the cloud has no security,

yes it does.

whereas at least
you can lock tapes in a library.

that makes it a bit hard to access that way.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:01:28 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Rich writes:

Whatever gains were made by faster computers in the last 10 years have
been erased by the time it takes to "talk" to programs on distant
servers. Cloud computer proves one thing, you can't cut costs beyond
reason and expect the same efficiency.

Cloud computing is a waste of time.

Today's computers are not limited by processor or memory speeds for the
vast majority of applications. The real limitations are disk access
times and network speeds. Disk access times have not significantly
improved in decades, and network speeds are being held down artificially
by telecom companies (but even if they were not held down, they'd be no
match for the rest of a computer system).

Storing data in a cloud is several orders of magnitude less efficient
than storing it on magnetic tape, and the cloud has no security, whereas
at least you can lock tapes in a library.

It's the current state of the trend. At first everyone shared memory and
storage on a computer from their 'dumb' terminals. Then, eventually,
everyone had their own computer and their own resources. Now many folks
have several 'computing devices' and would like to have the data
available on all of their devices no matter where in the world they are.
The cloud answers THAT requirement.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:17:11 +0000, ray wrote:

It's the current state of the trend. At first everyone shared memory and
storage on a computer from their 'dumb' terminals. Then, eventually,
everyone had their own computer and their own resources. Now many folks
have several 'computing devices' and would like to have the data
available on all of their devices no matter where in the world they are.
The cloud answers THAT requirement.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't help to sell advertising or other
targeted leverage, why wasn't the "home server" a workable answer to that
problem? Allows people to avoid buying and looking after another box is
one reason, but that seems solvable.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:37:44 +0000, Andrew Reilly wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:17:11 +0000, ray wrote:

It's the current state of the trend. At first everyone shared memory
and storage on a computer from their 'dumb' terminals. Then,
eventually, everyone had their own computer and their own resources.
Now many folks have several 'computing devices' and would like to have
the data available on all of their devices no matter where in the world
they are. The cloud answers THAT requirement.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't help to sell advertising or other
targeted leverage, why wasn't the "home server" a workable answer to
that problem? Allows people to avoid buying and looking after another
box is one reason, but that seems solvable.

Cheers,

A "home server" is not generally accessible from the outside world unless
you have invested extra money to get a static IP address from your
provider - and then you have security issues. One idea, I believe, is
that corporate entities may be able to provide better security than Joe
Sixpack is capable of doing.

Quite frankly, I don't care. I have a home network of five or six
computers which I don't access from the outside world. And I have a 'dumb
phone' and no tablet. Though I do have a laptop, I basically use it,
outside the home, to download photos when we're travelling.

In article , ray
wrote:

A "home server" is not generally accessible from the outside world unless
you have invested extra money to get a static IP address from your
provider - and then you have security issues.

nonsense. use dynamic dns, and it's not that hard to lock it down.

also, a lot of isps have a very long dhcp lease so even though it's
technically dynamic, it's really not since it doesn't change.

One idea, I believe, is
that corporate entities may be able to provide better security than Joe
Sixpack is capable of doing.

like citibank and sony?

or dropbox where anyone could log in with just an email and no password
at all, for several hours a week or two ago?

Quite frankly, I don't care. I have a home network of five or six
computers which I don't access from the outside world. And I have a 'dumb
phone' and no tablet. Though I do have a laptop, I basically use it,
outside the home, to download photos when we're travelling.

seriously?

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:52:31 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

A "home server" is not generally accessible from the outside world
unless you have invested extra money to get a static IP address from
your provider - and then you have security issues.

nonsense. use dynamic dns, and it's not that hard to lock it down.

Notice I said 'generally'. You expect someone who can't manage a home
server to set up and keep a dyndns subscription current?


also, a lot of isps have a very long dhcp lease so even though it's
technically dynamic, it's really not since it doesn't change.

One idea, I believe, is
that corporate entities may be able to provide better security than Joe
Sixpack is capable of doing.

like citibank and sony?

I was thinking more along the lines of google - gmail, etc.


or dropbox where anyone could log in with just an email and no password
at all, for several hours a week or two ago?

Quite frankly, I don't care. I have a home network of five or six
computers which I don't access from the outside world. And I have a
'dumb phone' and no tablet. Though I do have a laptop, I basically use
it, outside the home, to download photos when we're travelling.

seriously?

Quite seriously. For me, a cell phone is to make and take calls. Period.
And I have been a computer professional for over 30 years.

The ultimate point is that, at least so far, no one is being compelled to
participate in the cloud if they don't want to - no matter what the
issues are - and yes, there are certainly alternatives - of all varieties.

In article , ray
wrote:

A "home server" is not generally accessible from the outside world
unless you have invested extra money to get a static IP address from
your provider - and then you have security issues.

nonsense. use dynamic dns, and it's not that hard to lock it down.

Notice I said 'generally'. You expect someone who can't manage a home
server to set up and keep a dyndns subscription current?

what's to set up? setting it up on a mac is trivial and a dyndns
subscription is not required.

heck, get a pogoplug and it's even easier.

One idea, I believe, is
that corporate entities may be able to provide better security than Joe
Sixpack is capable of doing.

like citibank and sony?

I was thinking more along the lines of google - gmail, etc.

they had problems too, as did yahoo, hotmail, etc.

at&t's breach last year was because you only needed an iccid in a query
to have the system return a user's email address. all that was needed
was to write a script to scan a block of iccids and instant list of
users.

Quite frankly, I don't care. I have a home network of five or six
computers which I don't access from the outside world. And I have a
'dumb phone' and no tablet. Though I do have a laptop, I basically use
it, outside the home, to download photos when we're travelling.

seriously?

Quite seriously. For me, a cell phone is to make and take calls. Period.

which has nothing to do with tablets or laptops.

And I have been a computer professional for over 30 years.

a lot has changed in 30 years. even 10 years.

The ultimate point is that, at least so far, no one is being compelled to
participate in the cloud if they don't want to - no matter what the
issues are - and yes, there are certainly alternatives - of all varieties.

nobody is forced to use cloud computing, but most people will since the
advantages are so compelling.

On 2011-06-30 11:44:45 -0700, nospam said:

In article , ray
wrote:



Quite seriously. For me, a cell phone is to make and take calls. Period.

which has nothing to do with tablets or laptops.

And I have been a computer professional for over 30 years.

a lot has changed in 30 years. even 10 years.

Try 18 months!

The ultimate point is that, at least so far, no one is being compelled to
participate in the cloud if they don't want to - no matter what the
issues are - and yes, there are certainly alternatives - of all varieties.

nobody is forced to use cloud computing, but most people will since the
advantages are so compelling.

The "Cloud" is going to be, or should I say actually is a useful tool
for for users of mobile devices, and "road warrior" trying to lighten
their load, while having full access any files they need.


--
Regards,

Savageduck