Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Says Cloud Computing Is a Trap
stevedcc writes in to tell us about an interview with RMS in The Guardian, in which he gives his views on cloud computing, with a particular focus on user access to data and the sacrifices made for convenience. "'It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign,' he told The Guardian. 'Somebody is saying this is inevitable — and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true.'" Computerworld has a summary of some of the blogosphere's reaction to RMS's position.
I am in disbelief over anyones the acceptance of the idea. Relinquishing control over your data to an outside source seems unfathomably retarded, no matter what kind of spin is put on it.
It's stupidity.
I'm not a big fan of black and white formats.
Nor am I a big fan of people who paint reality to be only black or white.
There are shades of gray.
For anyone to stand up and pronounce this as either 100% good or 100% bad is laughable. I'm certain Google & Amazon will/have found a completely viable and useful application for cloud computing--I mean unless I'm mistaken I think it's already working with Open Social. I'm sure it will have at the very least a niche application in computing. It might be very small, it might be very big. But to call it complete stupidity is quite ignorant.
'Somebody is saying this is inevitable -- and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true.'
Uh oh, look at this! Oh no! Stupid stupid stupid! Just because businesses and proponents want it, doesn't necessarily make it evil or stupid. That's being shoved down my throat and self fulfilled prophecy and ... bad stuff ...
... we may have a candidate for cloud computing! Why not let some other company/people provide the cycles? Surely one could dream up some application even if it is merely a trivial/novel concept.
Furthermore, if the source code is GPL and the application is public and the data is not sensitive
My work here is dung.
The vast majority of computer users are not system administrators. For them, having someone -- whether it's the company administrator down the hall, or Google somewhere out there -- shepherd their data is a great reassurance.
99% of people don't host their own websites, so they depend on someone else to do it. Would Stallman say it's bad for those people to give that person or hosting company control over their data?
If there's one person in this industry who has been consistent over the years it's Richard Stallman. You may not agree with his views: that personal freedoms are more important than technical merit or convenience but you have to admit that he has never drifted from his what he believes in. He's also proven that he is willing to use real hard work (e.g., in the form of code) to promote the principles of his beliefs.
I think few people would realize how much different the computing world would be without the positive influence he's had on our industry.
Also, the record for many of his writings are pretty right on track. Just as an example: A decade ago the idea that you might need special "rights" in order to read a book might have been perceived as .. oh, what are the words people are using now? "raving" or "lunacy". Yet today Digital Restrictions Management embedded in eBooks, games and multi-media are a real thing -- and a real threat to personal freedoms.
Now, I'm just speaking for myself, but when RMS speaks, I will stop and read -- or listen (and be grateful I still have the freedoms to chose to do so) :-)
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
He says "Oracle's Ellison is selling cloud computing products and poking fun at his own marketing. Stallman is opposed to the cloud because he thinks it locks users into proprietary, non-open source software. Guess which one is a billionaire?"
Regardless of the merits of Stallman's views, that's just a fucking stupid statement. Like someone defending Rush Limbaugh's factual accuracy by pointing to his ratings.
Like someone rebutting concerns over monopolies by pointing out the existence of robber-barons.
This space available.
You probably should have saved your pity for an occasion when RMS wasn't right on the ball. He'll give you opportunities, trust me.
But cloud computing is a buzzword for a marketing campaign. It's the newest renaming of renting software as services.
Look, I disagree with that smelly old hippy on a LOT of stuff. Most in fact. But on this he's actually right.
the only issue with your argument is that the standalone is always going to be there.
say in 15 years they have come so far with web apps and always connected that most people decied to use it isntead of the standalone.. the standalone is going to lose development.. or be poorly developed.. and therefor will not be there when they decied to start charging
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I would be willing to stake my Slashdot karma on the prediction that OpenOffice or a reasonable facsimile will always exist as a product I can download and run on my own hardware. E-mail, well I could always use my ISP for my e-mail or even running my own mail server isn't out of the question but the nature of e-mail is that it has to exist somewhere and for most people it's not practical to run their own mail server. And as long as I can still buy HDDs I'll never be reliant on Google or MS to access my photos, music, movies, or documents. Even if Windows eventually becomes nothing more than a thin client connecting to the MS mothership I'm sure I'll still be able to grab a Linux ISO and continue using a real operating system on my own hardware.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
About your second point: you accept "magic box" services every day of your life. You put your money in a bank and trust that they're gonna give it back when you ask for it. You pay a cable company to provide you internet, and trust that none of their techs are reading your email. You use your credit/debit card at countless businesses, and trust a whole chain of people not to swipe your card number.
If I was going to be paranoid about lack of transparency and control in paid services, there are a dozen other every day things I would be more worried about than my GMail account.
He's right that there are problems. His solution is what makes him sound like an irrational lunatic. Boycott all services that don't follow the FLOSS regime's decree! Idiocy. How about instead, we work with service providers like a semi-rational person would to get them to come in line with users privacy concerns. It's actually not that hard to come up with a solution that works for everybody once you kick all the raving nutters out of the room.
Of complaining about cloud computing by saying this:
'It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign
By saying this:
Computerworld has a summary of some of the blogosphere's reaction to RMS's position.
Emphasis mine.
Using one media driven piece of hype to denigrate another media driven piece of hype seems...well, silly to me.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Consider what's happening when DRM services for entertainment media are going away. Now consider what happens if a cloud service with your only copy of your critical data goes away.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Who says you have to pay with money? You're paying with data about you. Google must know a lot about you by now.
That's good, but a lot of people will trust the cloud to have its own redundancy system to protect their data, never thinking the cloud might betray their trust.
Also consider what would happen if the cloud were to leak your data, having it rain down on your competitors, or just one person inside the cloud with the ability to read your data and deciding its something the world should know (Palin e-mails). (Just because you don't use cloud services for sensitive communications doesn't mean others won't send them to your cloud.)
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Because if their auto mechanic goes bankrupt/closes they can always find another one to take their cars to. If their IT service goes bankrupt/closes, you can find another provider, but the data you had is gone.
It is in only the rare case that your car is in the shop when the mechanic goes bankrupt that you have any chance of losing your car; your data is always in the IT shop.
Also, there is little of proprietary interest in your automobile. "Oh, look, they drove 3000 miles since the last oil change." Doesn't mean much. There is a LOT of proprietary interest in your customer data, and stealing it would be trivial. You wouldn't even know it was gone, because technically it wouldn't be. It would just be that your competitor has a copy of all your data, too.
I would be willing to stake my Slashdot karma on the prediction that OpenOffice or a reasonable facsimile will always exist as a product I can download and run on my own hardware. E-mail, well I could always use my ISP for my e-mail or even running my own mail server isn't out of the question but the nature of e-mail is that it has to exist somewhere and for most people it's not practical to run their own mail server. And as long as I can still buy HDDs I'll never be reliant on Google or MS to access my photos, music, movies, or documents. Even if Windows eventually becomes nothing more than a thin client connecting to the MS mothership I'm sure I'll still be able to grab a Linux ISO and continue using a real operating system on my own hardware.
And that we can thank our Dear RMS for.
Thanks papa bear.
Sean
and of course thousands of others, but we're talking about rms right now
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
I think the danger can be mitigated with common sense security measures
I see you've never provided front line tech support...
You're using her as bait, Master!
what about other remotely stored data like contact lists? and webmail isn't the only application for cloud-computing.
i don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using cloud services per se, but it would be unwise to become over-reliant on them, especially for important/valuable or sensitive info. i mean, using cloud services to share data and for backup probably isn't what RMS is warning against.
one thing i like about Gmail and Google in general is their stance that it's the user's data, and they should be free to take it wherever they want, whenever they want. this attitude has ensured that Gmail, and other google service, users are given the option to export their stored data in an open format that can be easily imported by desktop applications or other web services.
so if Google goes out of business or they decide to charge for their end user services, i can take my data somewhere else. this gives me confidence that Google will protect user interests, and provides a form of insurance against service changes in the future.
but if a company like Thompson Reuters decided to offer a web service, i would not trust them with my data. their litigation against GMU has demonstrated that they are willing to lock users into their proprietary format. so if you were using an online collaboration tool developed by Thompson Reuters, and you wanted to take your project to another service or migrate to a desktop application, you probably wouldn't be allowed to export your data from their cloud service.
then there is the privacy issue. look at what Yahoo, and even Google, have done in the past to help the Chinese government root out political dissidents. look at how the telecoms have illegally encroached on customer privacy. can you honestly say that a world in which cloud-computing has replaced desktop applications is not something to worry about?
Actually I am not willing to bet anything on cloud computing. It is a marketing illusion, consumer electronic device with foss software will rule the day in terms of applications. Why the hell would anybody bother with those privacy invasive add spweing services, when they can simply plug in and run the own easy to configure consumer grade appliance server, running their own mail, web, media and file servers.
It really seems like idiot corporations go blind with greed, the delusion of being able to rent peoples data back to them, it all just totally ignores the reality and how server services have become more accessible and cheaper every year and, will continue to do so. It really is nothing more than hype, today's low cost technology attempting to solve yesterdays high cost server problems and for some inane reason they belief those low cost solution are only available to corporations to be rented to consumers with unlimited profit margins and will not become directly available to consumers at very low prices.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Right now all the "cloud computing" I do is free: I use windows Live services, Gmail, Google Docs, Google Notebook.
Absolutely none of that is Free.
You have the source for nothing. If they go away, you cannot continue to use them on your own server. If they lack a feature you would like you cannot improve on them.
"Cloud Computing" is simply commercial software delivered on-demand, with the same benefits and drawbacks.
In fact you're a little worse off because you can't even disassemble the server source to see how it works (possibly offset by the benefit of being able to more easily examine some of the UI code in browser based systems).
RMS is right about what happens if no-one truly owns software they use... I don't know that he's right about cloud computing in general because you can run your own truly Free software in the cloud... but software as services, he is right to issue warnings.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Finally, while many people admire and respect Mr. Stallman, he's never claimed to represent anyone.
While I seriously doubt that (that he's never claimed to represent anyone), it's possible. His MO when writing code is to create a giant steaming pile of crap and then depend on others to fix the problems and maintain it.
I know from personal experience that he is a control freak. All "official sanctioned" GNU code is owned by him, by copyright assignment. It is not enough for software to be under the GPL. My only direct experience was a phone call right after I had taken over the job of Mr. XEmacs and he told me how he must "wage war" (direct quote) against me and XEmacs because even though we were true blue GPL, he must have FSF copyright assignment.
The Emacs source code which we inherited and forked is littered with 1000+ line functions, 6+ levels of nested if-else and assorted other crap that looks like it was being written to violate as many rules of good programming style as possible. The amount of time it took to get the code in a state where we could display CJK fonts in Emacs (and in a stable state) was staggering, especially considering that we were basing our work off the good folks' at ETL Mule.
I have no respect for the man, no respect for his (programming) work. I find the names Linux/GNU and worse GNU/Linux to be as childish and offensive as the children who like to write Micro$oft and M$ and similar crap. (You might as well also write "you can't spell gOatse without the Gates and a big O". It's equally as witty.) Anyone can develop userland tools. Only a handful of people, of which Richard is NOT one, can develop a successful kernel.
On the other hand, he wrote one of the most insightful and brilliant papers in ACM history describing the architecture of Emacs and he does deserve credit for initiating the GNU project, thus inspiring many folks including myself to publish our work and help out on other projects.
Of course, even you write insightful things from time to time. No one is completely good or bad.
And that we can thank our Dear RMS for.
Thanks papa bear.
Indeed. I get very tired of all the denizens of the peanut gallery who start frothing at the mouth whenever RMS' name is even mentioned, as if he was some personal enemy to be abhorred and shunned.
In common with the probable majority of these people, I have never actually met the man, but I am capable of recognising that he has contributed more to Free and Open Source software than most us ever will.
It might be worth remembering that the next time Google decides it was only joking the last time they revoked an opressive and obnoxious license agreement. If your data is important to you, simple common-sense should indicate that putting it in someone else's hands is sheer folly. RMS is 100% on the money.
RMS is right. Cloud computing is big business' push to turn what was a previously unacceptably democratic computing paradigm into one that can be controlled by only those players with enough funding to set up "clouds".
The migration away from mainframes in the 80s was supposed to avoid just the problem with massively centralized computing: I.e., the problem that centralized computing forces everyone to be doing the same thing or at very least, conforming to the same design parameters.
Personally, I like my PC. I don't want to be constrained to only doing things that can be done in "cloud space". Having an OS that I can do whatever I want on, in absolute privacy and not having to rely on corporate policy to be at least partially friendly to me is something that I value. I don't want Google, Yahoo or Facebook letting the government look over my shoulder, or their big corporate buddies using their data to shove ads down my throat. It also means that I can't just buy a computer and use it as much as I want for no extra cost. Now I have to pay Internet bills, plus whatever software service charges will be applicable in this new forthcoming cloud.
On another note, cloud computing makes it *impossible* for the masses to implement proper privacy policies or cryptography. You think it's hard at the moment to get people to use secure email? Try implementing privacy when everyone's using Hotmail, Gmail and Yahoo.
So called SaaS/cloud computing is just a way to ensure that the big end of town gets to watch and control what everyone else is doing, and bill them by the month.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I hate printers.
not refreshing the page to communicate to the server.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Indeed. I get very tired of all the denizens of the peanut gallery who start frothing at the mouth whenever RMS' name is even mentioned, as if he was some personal enemy to be abhorred and shunned.
In common with the probable majority of these people, I have never actually met the man, but I am capable of recognising that he has contributed more to Free and Open Source software than most us ever will.
I have met him. Just the once at a programmer's society meeting where he was a guest speaker about 5 or 6 years ago. He brings the criticism on himself. No one really cares that he's eccentric and his hygiene isn't the best. They're just easy targets.
I asked him at the public q&a (after he'd done his Saint IGNUcius routine, complete with robe and halo): How do you counter claims that free software is more difficult to use than proprietary paid for software. He looked me up and down and said "Who says its hard to use" and turned away. It didn't help that I'd just come from work and was therefore the only person in the room wearing a suite. If I didn't know that he'd worked on Emacs and gdb, I'd have simply written him off as a flamboyant nut job.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
He looked me up and down and said "Who says its hard to use" and turned away.
Interesting. I wouldn't want to attempt to excuse his boorish behaviour, but the attitude sounds characteristic of someone who spends a disproportionate amount of time interacting with machines rather than people. This might also account for a certain tendency for correspondents on this forum to go up in flames and hurl abuse without provocation.
I too have met him, in a somewhat similiar setting as yours, and sure he's a bit weird and sure he looks like a hippie, but dangnabbit there is something absolutely impressive about a man who's taken a good long look at his beliefs, drawn them out to their logical conclusions and then acted from those conclusions.
I admire that, and while you and I and many others may think he acts weird and says strange stuff from time to time, if you look a bit deeper you'll see that he's almost inevitably consistent in his beliefs.
You can say what you will about the man, but I do sorrily miss that more people don't do what he has done: Analyze your beliefs and act accordingly.
As for your q&a experience: How many times do you reckon he's got that question? Since he uses free software exclusively, it might not even be a meaningful question for him.
Oh, and reducing his contribution to "worked on Emacs and gdb" is really disingenious. He's done far, far more than that for the community. Look it up.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Maintaining a PC is not as hard as you imply...
For you and me, you are correct - it really isn't all that hard if you devote even a little time. However, professionally (and personally) I am regularly called on to fix other people's computers and for many people it clearly is hard. There are many reasons why of course but it is unquestionably beyond the capabilities of many people.
Sometimes it's because they can't be bothered, sometimes they don't have the time, other times they are afraid of screwing something up, and frequently they simply don't know how. I often joke that knowing how to maintain a computer is a great way to seem smarter than I actually am. Fix a broken PC and people think you are some kind of tech wizard - whether you actually are or not.
Plus a lot of folks simply don't have the time even if they know how. As an analogy I'm quite capable of doing my own plumbing but I do it so seldom it is more efficient for me to hire someone else to fix problems when they arise. Likewise a lot of my clients can solve their own problems but they simply don't have the time so they hire me.
So yes there are problems with cloud applications but there are problems with locally hosted applications too. There is no free lunch, it's simply a question of what works best for your needs.