Slashdot Mirror
Glitch Has Users Fuming, Google 'Frantic'
netbuzz writes "A problem with Google's Personalized Home Page feature has apparently cost a lot of users their carefully crafted doors to the Internet. And Google, which says it is frantically searching for a fix, also acknowledges that it is not sure if it will be able to recover the lost settings. 'The problem is the latest in what seems a regular stream of technical glitches and availability problems affecting Google's online services. In the past six months, Google services like Blogger, Gmail and Google Apps have all experienced significant technical issues that have left users fuming. The problems highlight one of the risks of relying on hosted applications providers, which offer to house software and its data for individuals and organizations. Google is one of the biggest cheerleaders for this software provisioning model, which many see as a viable option to the traditional approach of having users install applications on their own PCs and servers.'"
why storing all your data on some company's servers is a good idea?
So 3 different apps have 1 hiccup each over the course of 6 months. If only my desktop applications were so reliable. I can't even count how many paragraphs in Word I've lost due to crashes, or how many settings I've lost in Gnome from random bugs. I don't see what the fuss is, it's still a matter of "shit happens" only Google seems to be rather responsive about it all.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Under what law? IANAL, but I believe making a hopeful statement in a press release is rather different than signing a legal contract. I think it would be poor public relations to overpromise and underdeliver, but illegal? That sounds crazy.
Maybe because over the course of a few months or years, Google's uptime is a lot higher than my company's servers?
Just how much do people have invested here? I haven't experienced the glitch yet, but if I did it would take me all of five minutes to set up my settings the way I want them again. It really doesn't strike me as being as big a deal as everyone says it is. I mean, all of the services Google offers are absolutely free. Does anyone really have any right to complain about something they're getting for free? Well, of course they have the right, let me rephrase that: people shouldn't complain about stuff that they get for free. :P
An object at rest cannot be stopped.
This exactly the reason I don't believe all these reports that Google's (Or other) online apps will take over from local software. Sure online word processing can be handy, but if the network breaks, or their servers do you've got no comeback. If Gmail broke tomorrow and everyone lost all their e-mails (and logins to websites etc) there would be mass problems and loads of people would be really annoyed. But there wouldn't be much we could do about it, I'm sure in the eula we're not allowed to sue for lost data etc because that would be crazy if everyone did. At least if its local you have someone to blame/punch....
---
Contronyms: for people who sanction opposites
---
What many of us don't realize is the fact that depending on a large service provider such as Google for applictions provision may actually leave us quite vulnerable. What we are doing is putting all our eggs in one basket. If Google goes down, your business processes crash with it. eBay lost a lot in revenues when its servers crashed a few years ago. If there were a peer-to-peer e-commerce model, people would feel more secure and less dependent on others for commerce. Imagine storing all your information on your own hard-drive, and selling products to others WITHOUT paying ebay fees! Ultimate empowerment implies physical independence. Until that happens, we are all vulnerable.
Now here's one iPoddy site! iPod Range
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
I think you're missing his point. Remotely hosting content opens people up to risks. He's going for the difference between outlook / thunderbird and gmail, and he makes a reasonable point. If my computer breaks down, I'm the fool who didn't back up. When a hosted solution goes down, everyone loses. It's not rocket science deduction he's doing, but it's still relevant to the overall point that Google goes down, service providers are inherently unreliable to some extent, and, as you said, life goes on. Unless it's me, and THEN I'm pissed.
Mozy, free online backup service
--
"Shit happens", that's true. You should always be prepared. You should always backup.
But... if Google lost everyone's email messages from the last 6 months would it be fair of Google to say "well you should've backed it all up"? After all, what is Gmail if not a purely-online, searchable e-mail archive?
You can't expect users to be prepared for their archive to be destroyed, right? If Google wants me to manage my e-mail online, they can't expect me to download it all too, just in case.
The "stream of technical glitches" described in the article, albeit overstressed, is pointing at something that should worry us: If the software market is going towards online services, where data is centralized and 1 server down means 1,000 users down - what strategic steps do we take in order to protect our users and our data?
Bill Gates Has No Penis.
Ok, maybe I'm missing what everyone is saying here. I keep seeing things like "remotely hosting content opens people up to risks" as if locally hosted content doesn't. There are risks regardless of whether information is hosted.
...and you're still the fool for not backing it up. If you keep your information in one place, you risk losing it if something happens to that place. I see now, mainly because you pointed it out not because I can understand what the hell that line meant, that his point was that many people can be affected by a crash when information is hosted remotely. However, the article wasn't about the affect it has on the masses but instead seemed to be about the affects it had on individuals. I think that is going down a different road, but either way the initial point is still valid in that it isn't news. I don't think anyone has trouble understanding that if a million people have their information hosted on a website and that website loses the information, then a million people's (peoples'?) information has just been lost.
If my computer breaks down, I'm the fool who didn't back up. When a hosted solution goes down, everyone loses.
.....that Google goes down......
Go back 30 years and substitute "the mainframe goes down". That's how it was before the "personal computer" was invented. Now we'll come full circle. The same system, one central computer and many users, and with it one central point of failure.
With a personal computer each user has more control over their information, but also more responsibility. There is a lot more "stuff" between my data stored by Google and my keyboard/monitor than the data store on the HD on my computer. A local HD or better still a good RAID storage system is still WAY more reliable than all the technology that needs to work correctly for the Google approach.
When there is a power outage here, we have UPS/Generator backup. However that is useless for the Internet, since the data multiplexer box about a quarter mile from here doesn't have any sort of backup. It just quits. The old POTS and dial up still work, but that will not sustain any serious work on any remote server. As far as the Internet goes, we're just held incommunicado until the power comes back.
Until the Internet becomes at LEAST as reliable as the good old fashioned phone, Internet applications will have no appeal to anyone who values reliability and accessibility to their data.
All theory is gray
Yes, exactly. That is NOT funny but insightful. Almost all of these services are in beta. What the hell are you doing using Gmail for your corporate services?