Slashdot Mirror


IT Desktop Support To Be Wiped Out Thanks To Cloud Computing

An anonymous reader writes "Tech industry experts are saying that desktop support jobs will be declining sharply thanks to cloud computing. Why is this happening? A large majority of companies and government agencies will rely on the cloud for more than half of their IT services by 2020, according to Gartner's 2011 CIO Agenda Survey."

19 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. Survey? by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The naivety into a fud survey disturbs me, not to mention the whole company dependence issue which could lead into a business trap backlash if one fails.

    Cloud computing isn't going to kill anything.

    1. Re:Survey? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, hype overload is killing brain cells.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Survey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      agree. I run a service desk. Cloud computing doesn't eliminate the morons using computers. Cloud computing won't change a thing except provide new challengers to my tier 1 techs.

    3. Re:Survey? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you no longer need a computer to "access the cloud"? And here I was labouring under the impression that the majority of support jobs were related to hardware faults, OS problems, malware and user error, how "the cloud" will stop this happening is a mystery.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    4. Re:Survey? by CSMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you no longer need a computer to "access the cloud"? And here I was labouring under the impression that the majority of support jobs were related to hardware faults, OS problems, malware and user error, how "the cloud" will stop this happening is a mystery.

      The dumber the terminal, the fewer hardware faults, OS problems and malware, no?
      Although in practice we can expect a dumbing down of the user base too :).

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    5. Re:Survey? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The sad part is nobody seems to remember we have been down this road before....show of hands, anybody remember the whole "thin client push" in the dot bomb days? I sure do, you had all these companies pushing "the net/server' would solve everything, all your IT needs and problems just poof! Gone. anybody else remember that? So what happened?

      The exact same things that is gonna happen this time, worries about data security, having a whole office sitting on ass if the network ever goes down, lag and crappy hosted apps not being as good as rich desktop apps, which BTW none of these problems have been solved by replacing net or server with cloud. I guess history doomed repeat and all that.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Survey? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you no longer need a computer to "access the cloud"? And here I was labouring under the impression that the majority of support jobs were related to hardware faults, OS problems, malware and user error, how "the cloud" will stop this happening is a mystery.

      The dumber the terminal, the fewer hardware faults, OS problems and malware, no? Although in practice we can expect a dumbing down of the user base too :).

      At some point it's got to to run an OS, maybe on a backend server instead of a workstation but it's there. Where there's an OS and users, there will be malware. The hardware faults will transfer to "server" instead of the workstation. An interesting change will be that a hardware fault that takes down the box will impact multiple users instead of just one. You will get the benefit of redundancy if you're running a real server, though.

      As an aside, we had cloud computing in the 80's and 90's. We called it Client-Server and used terminals connected to unix servers (in my case specifically, HP-UX). Now we're doing the same thing, just with different hardware and software.

    7. Re:Survey? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having really dumb terminals does simplify end support though. Computer not working? Pull it out, put in a new one. Send the old one back to the manufacturer. It means one IT worker can support many more computers, and needs less training thus lower pay. This is very good from a business perspective, but very bad for job satisfaction. Telecoms went through something like that when the old click-and-bang mechanical switches were replaced with solid state boards that were just swapped out, thus reducing highly skilled engineers to the role of 'pull anything with the fault light lit and stick in a new one.' A lot of them retired early.

    8. Re:Survey? by lightknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surprisingly often, if past incidents are anything to go by.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    9. Re:Survey? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, and it will stop the entire company from working when it happens.

      Managers will start to think that individual PCs will prevent that...and we'll begin the circle of computing all over again. Just like the last time.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Survey? by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmmm...and thus the Distributed Cloud was born in the year 2016. Before that, cloud services were centralized and so were downtimes. Managers felt that this was a denial of service to the worker bees and in order to keep them happy, a distributed form of cloud service was necessary. In the new concept, individual PCs will perform cloud services for individual worker bees...at their OWN desk. Hailed as a remarkable productivity enhancer that made men stronger and women prettier, Management declared Victory with Honor and many awards were passed out. The Business World heaved a sigh of relief that the cloud scourge had been fixed. Techies merely heaved.

    11. Re:Survey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give it an effing rest, will ya? We're talking about computers not polictics.

    12. Re:Survey? by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For "cloud" access, a "thin client" has to be pretty beefy, because for access to "cloud" applications, the client will have to have not just a keyboard/mouse/TCP/IP stack (like an X-station), but a full OS that has to handle security, a Web browser with support for add-ons, and some form of persistent storage (so each machine can be uniquely identified via remote via a cookie, "super-cookie", LSO, or whatnot.)

      With persistant storage comes HDDs or SDDs.

      Desktop IT support is not going to vanish anytime soon:

      1: Someone has to deal with broken machines/terminals in users' cubicles of offices. In theory, switching out a thin client would be the best thing, but in reality, thin clients tend to usually be more expensive than a generic x86 desktop, and with a desktop, parts can be swapped which means another client doesn't have to be purchased if one breaks. Of course, if it is a new thin client, it will have a different MAC address, so it won't be allowed on a locked down corporate network, which brings us to the next point.

      2: There are going to be network admins. Packets don't magically route themselves, so someone is going to be there making sure the routers are working and secure, and local company policies are enforced. That way, a worm originating in one corporate department stays in that subnet and doesn't wind up in receiving or sales. Even if things work perfectly, someone is going to have to be there every six months to upgrade the router OS every time Cisco makes a major security update package.

      Personally, cloud computing has its place, but it is not a cure-all, just like Javastations were not a cure-all when that was the rage, nor were X-stations the cure-all when that was important.

  2. Wiped out or shifting? by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You always see this kind of language when disruptive change occurs (e.g. production lines Vs. hand built, car Vs. carriage, electricity Vs. coal, etc) but all that really happens is the jobs shift from one area to another, and that people need to adapt or die.

    Desktop Support MIGHT decline, but we will see growth in service level jobs at third parties. Instead of having in-house IT staff teach people how to use e-mail, you'll have someone across the country or globe do the same job.

    I guess one might argue that you can shift the jobs abroad, but as we've seen in the last few years such out-sourcing is not cost effective in the long term (or at least with skilled jobs it isn't).

  3. Will the cloud magically train users? by brokeninside · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I worked in desktop support for a number of different companies. (I've also done software testing, and programming.) Currently, I do end user support for a vertical software package.

    Anyway, in ten years across four different firms supporting everything from commodity hardware to custom software, one thing has remained constant. Most support calls aren't for the sort of configuration and installation issues that the cloud solves. Rather, most support calls are for users that are unable (or unwilling) to read the manual or to show the user how to do things that are either too basic or too complicated to have been included in the manual.

    Moving to the cloud isn't going to magically make a user understand the difference between a short cut and a file. Nor is it going to explain to them what those numbers in that report that hits that one table in the database means.

  4. Anyone that knows anything... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you know anything, you know that's nonsense. For one thing, most companies require services not offered by the cloud. Beyond that, never under estimate the user's ability to not be able to find the O.N. button or otherwise screw up a foolproof system.

    The IT situation is going to change. It always does. But abstracting it all to the cloud isn't possible unless you have a custom database designed for the amazon cloud or something and even then you've got the whole IT department that manages that.

    Beyond that you have local files. Telling businesses that they can't get access to anything if the internet drops isn't going to work.

    There are just so many serious fatal problems with this idea.

    This funny little video touches on a few:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4EbCkotKPU

    Yes yes... evil M$... insert hiss and boo... but we're talking about end user business software. Have fun clawing Excel out of their cold dead hands.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  5. Re:What a bunch of useless buzzwords by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone in IT who thinks this is news is a teen or a manager who was never technical. Mainframes were the first attempt at "cloud computing". Then we had mini-computers for distributed processing. Then to micro-computers with centralized computing again (telnetting and terminal emulations, BBS, etc.). Then distributed again as PCs grew in power. Then centralized/cloud again when servers had a resurgence in the '90s (the birth of RDP, Citrix, VNC, etc.). Then that was abandoned as PCs became more powerful than the servers of 2 years before. And now we have the massive push for "cloud" again. Same shit, another decade.

    And it's *always* cheaper to in-source (provided you can find the appropriate resources). You can either do it yourself, or you can pay someone their cost, which could be your cost, plus 20% or more overhead and profit. So outsourcing costs you a minimum of 20% more than doing it in house. But all the consultants swear it's better to outsource - to their company. That's like hiring the Fox and Co security company to guard the hen house.

  6. Re:What a bunch of useless buzzwords by Geeky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And it's *always* cheaper to in-source (provided you can find the appropriate resources). You can either do it yourself, or you can pay someone their cost, which could be your cost, plus 20% or more overhead and profit. So outsourcing costs you a minimum of 20% more than doing it in house. But all the consultants swear it's better to outsource - to their company. That's like hiring the Fox and Co security company to guard the hen house.

    Not always. Take email, look at the costs of using Google mail vs. running a complete, resilient mail system. Control over your data aside, for most small to medium businesses gmail will be a lot cheaper, not to mention more reliable and functional.

    --
    Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
  7. What'll actually happen by jht · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of today's internal server support jobs will go away. But there will still be network infrastructure to support (somebody has to manage the switches, firewalls, and access points), there's still going to be desktop support (PEBKAC errors, hardware, and malware), and there will likely be at least some local resources that need to be managed. We won't have a lot of people managing Exchange servers or Active Directory anymore. Or actually we still will - they'll just be working for the cloud providers instead of the client company.

    Besides that, this will open up opportunities for outsource support firms (disclaimer: I own a small one). Companies will still need specialized support resources on occasion, just likely not enough to employ a lot of them as staff. They will get that expertise as-needed to supplement what they have in-house.

    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."