Any thinking person is wrestling with this issue right now. Cloud computing is potentially a LOT more dangerous than it is beneficial. There's a ton of money being spent by the major players (Facebook, Google, Amazon AWS) and for at least one of these (Facebook) the path to profitability is not clear (and I recognize that they are making money today, but the ad revenue that they're pulling down may be related to hype in the advertiser's sector, not actual effectiveness. Advertisers may not like Facebook in a year). There was this kind of thought process, for example, on Facebook's part that all they needed was an enormous audience (check) and that somehow they'd be able to profit with their personal information for advertising. Now it's starting to come out in the press that Facebook's ads may not be effective and that there may be bots being used to increase click-through stats. So, if any of what the press is reporting on is true or if their profitability changes overnight, what are Facebook's options with their enormous collection of user data?
All "ecosystem" vendors are in this situation in some form or other. What does Google have to gain with Gmail, Google Drive, and G+? All of your stuff is sitting on their servers - an infrustructure that ain't cheap. At least Amazon Web Services has kind of found a way to make an infrustructure worth paying for and kind of have an economic interest in protecting properly. When my free-usage year wraps up on AWS next year I will be happy to continue on with a paid subscription (about 15 dollars a month for a micro-instance). But there's always this hanging doubt that things can be going on that the user is not aware of, even in the best case scenario. Always assume that someone is looking at your information and keep your data on offline storage. Always.
In the first place, Gamestop games are generally overpriced so I don't feel like they're doing anyone a favor with the in-store credit situation. Take, for instance, practically any new release; too often I can find a better deal on a brand new game just on eBay (especially if the title is super-eagerly anticipated). Second, my understanding (although I may need to be corrected here) is that game trade-ins are treated differently in terms of taxation than straightup purchases (as in not taxed at all). So, Gamestop can trade a game in over and over and over again at levels that are great for them but remarkably low for the consumer so that the consumer can buy games where I can get a better deal anywhere else. So, no I don't buy his reasoning. Digital distribution can't get hear fast enough as far as I'm concerned. Steam forever, Gamestop never.
Not sure how we came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea for Valve to make their own distro - a huge jump in reasoning. As if Half-Life 3 wasn't taking long enough to make, I don't think this would speed things up;) Honestly, I think that the Ubuntu distro is so well done and managed that I don't think Valve could improve things by throwing their hat in.
I speak three languages and I'm about as creative as a dialtone. This finding is bogus - Canadians are billingual, why don't they have a space program?
Speaking for myself - I've definitely been using Ubuntu practically exclusively now for a few months (12.04 is a joy). I WOULD get rid of my Windows PC if it weren't for gaming. This is definitely good news for the discriminating user. I'd like to see all of my Steam games moved to Linux (never going to happen), but a Steam version of a game will make a difference to me. Eagerly awaiting LfD2 on Linux. Using a closed source OS definitely makes me nervous, there've been too many cases in the past few years of manufacturers pulling info from users when they shouldn't - would like an OS that's open to community scrutiny.
This whole definition of "cloud" is a weird, I'm not sure why the term was even coined. You're basically using a service off of someone else's network. So, is that like co-location? If a company uses a co-lo to host their email and phone services, are that considered using the cloud? I don't see a difference with that and using AWS or Netflix. Any time you provision services off of someone else's network you're going to have these problems (and these are very old problems for people in the industry).
So, for anyone in IT the arguments of using someone else's computers and networks to provision services is a very old one. Sometimes it just makes sense to use a co-lo.
But this ecosystem nonsense is just a hassle. It doesn't sound economically feasible in the long run. Facebook's tanking and I can imagine that G+ will start doing things to make their ecosystem unpalatable to a thinking person. Think about it; youre email is used for a ton services including (especially) online bill pay and banking. What happens if you can't get into your account or the wrong person gets into it? Scary stuff. So, yeah, I'm going to start moving my domain off of G+ this weekend.
When I originally posted, I used the word "cloud". Then I went back and changed it to "ecosystem", so I have to chuckle with your correction. I think some cloud stuff is still okay, like Amazon Web Services (especially if you're not planning on hosting your email on your DSL). I like AWS a lot and, something in my mind, I don't find it sinking to the level of Facebook, G+, yahoo, at hotmail. Yet.
This has been building for a while and I've been thinking of not using their services for anything important anymore. I think, overall, that using any "ecosystem" is a terrible mistake. I got locked out of my Google account a few months ago and found it very difficult to get access to my docs. Maybe this ecosystem stuff has just run its course, we're living on other people's networks too much and need to start installing and maintaining our our postfix servers agains. I might start on it this weekend.
And, yes, requiring real names is a mistake. Sometimes people need to ask "dumb" questions and not look bad in a Google search.
Every five years or so people hem and hawe about remote service hosting and storage. In the late 90s everyone in the MS Exchange industry was considering remote hosting their groupware. Went no where. Then the new thing was co-hosting telecom. Went no where. In fact, remote-hosting is a good solution when an organization is small, but as soon as it starts to grow it becomes unmanageable. There ARE some examples where remote-hosting in large organizations that make sense, like Arizona State University's move from local IMAP servers to hosting on Gmail, or ASU's remote-hosting of Telecom with Century Link instead of running local CallManager servers - but the cost of these moves are easily dwarfed by the benefits as ASU can recognize the significant cost savings and the SLAs in education can be different than in other industries.
There's no such thing as too much money. This kind of thinking always leads to trouble and is short sighted. Best relatively recent example - The former US budget surplus. George W Bush thought the same thing that we had way too much money on-hand, so he slashed taxes, installed Medicare part D, and . . . uhm . . . other military things in the middle east somewhere.
Steve Jobs' ultimate genius was his indifference toward shareholder opinion and focus on cash generated from operations (an example that all corporations should be following to avoid more booms and busts - the economy is something that needs to be managed, not let run amok.)
It's the begining of the end of Apple's reign, it'll be in trouble again in 6 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Any thinking person is wrestling with this issue right now. Cloud computing is potentially a LOT more dangerous than it is beneficial. There's a ton of money being spent by the major players (Facebook, Google, Amazon AWS) and for at least one of these (Facebook) the path to profitability is not clear (and I recognize that they are making money today, but the ad revenue that they're pulling down may be related to hype in the advertiser's sector, not actual effectiveness. Advertisers may not like Facebook in a year). There was this kind of thought process, for example, on Facebook's part that all they needed was an enormous audience (check) and that somehow they'd be able to profit with their personal information for advertising. Now it's starting to come out in the press that Facebook's ads may not be effective and that there may be bots being used to increase click-through stats. So, if any of what the press is reporting on is true or if their profitability changes overnight, what are Facebook's options with their enormous collection of user data? All "ecosystem" vendors are in this situation in some form or other. What does Google have to gain with Gmail, Google Drive, and G+? All of your stuff is sitting on their servers - an infrustructure that ain't cheap. At least Amazon Web Services has kind of found a way to make an infrustructure worth paying for and kind of have an economic interest in protecting properly. When my free-usage year wraps up on AWS next year I will be happy to continue on with a paid subscription (about 15 dollars a month for a micro-instance). But there's always this hanging doubt that things can be going on that the user is not aware of, even in the best case scenario. Always assume that someone is looking at your information and keep your data on offline storage. Always.
In the first place, Gamestop games are generally overpriced so I don't feel like they're doing anyone a favor with the in-store credit situation. Take, for instance, practically any new release; too often I can find a better deal on a brand new game just on eBay (especially if the title is super-eagerly anticipated). Second, my understanding (although I may need to be corrected here) is that game trade-ins are treated differently in terms of taxation than straightup purchases (as in not taxed at all). So, Gamestop can trade a game in over and over and over again at levels that are great for them but remarkably low for the consumer so that the consumer can buy games where I can get a better deal anywhere else. So, no I don't buy his reasoning. Digital distribution can't get hear fast enough as far as I'm concerned. Steam forever, Gamestop never.
Well, to be fair, if the first StarCraft was any indication StarCraft 2 should be around for 20 years. Still . . . . yeah, you're right.
Not sure how we came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea for Valve to make their own distro - a huge jump in reasoning. As if Half-Life 3 wasn't taking long enough to make, I don't think this would speed things up ;) Honestly, I think that the Ubuntu distro is so well done and managed that I don't think Valve could improve things by throwing their hat in.
Strong point. Not sure if producing comedians is on the same level as a space program or Nobel prize, but that Mike Myers is crazy funny.
I speak three languages and I'm about as creative as a dialtone. This finding is bogus - Canadians are billingual, why don't they have a space program?
That wasn't Carmack, that was John Romero. And, no, I don't remember Daikatana either.
Speaking for myself - I've definitely been using Ubuntu practically exclusively now for a few months (12.04 is a joy). I WOULD get rid of my Windows PC if it weren't for gaming. This is definitely good news for the discriminating user. I'd like to see all of my Steam games moved to Linux (never going to happen), but a Steam version of a game will make a difference to me. Eagerly awaiting LfD2 on Linux. Using a closed source OS definitely makes me nervous, there've been too many cases in the past few years of manufacturers pulling info from users when they shouldn't - would like an OS that's open to community scrutiny.
They've finally created a computer that can run Crysis at 60 fps.
I'm sorry, I'm missing your point. Commodity software?
This whole definition of "cloud" is a weird, I'm not sure why the term was even coined. You're basically using a service off of someone else's network. So, is that like co-location? If a company uses a co-lo to host their email and phone services, are that considered using the cloud? I don't see a difference with that and using AWS or Netflix. Any time you provision services off of someone else's network you're going to have these problems (and these are very old problems for people in the industry). So, for anyone in IT the arguments of using someone else's computers and networks to provision services is a very old one. Sometimes it just makes sense to use a co-lo. But this ecosystem nonsense is just a hassle. It doesn't sound economically feasible in the long run. Facebook's tanking and I can imagine that G+ will start doing things to make their ecosystem unpalatable to a thinking person. Think about it; youre email is used for a ton services including (especially) online bill pay and banking. What happens if you can't get into your account or the wrong person gets into it? Scary stuff. So, yeah, I'm going to start moving my domain off of G+ this weekend.
When I originally posted, I used the word "cloud". Then I went back and changed it to "ecosystem", so I have to chuckle with your correction. I think some cloud stuff is still okay, like Amazon Web Services (especially if you're not planning on hosting your email on your DSL). I like AWS a lot and, something in my mind, I don't find it sinking to the level of Facebook, G+, yahoo, at hotmail. Yet.
This has been building for a while and I've been thinking of not using their services for anything important anymore. I think, overall, that using any "ecosystem" is a terrible mistake. I got locked out of my Google account a few months ago and found it very difficult to get access to my docs. Maybe this ecosystem stuff has just run its course, we're living on other people's networks too much and need to start installing and maintaining our our postfix servers agains. I might start on it this weekend. And, yes, requiring real names is a mistake. Sometimes people need to ask "dumb" questions and not look bad in a Google search.
Every five years or so people hem and hawe about remote service hosting and storage. In the late 90s everyone in the MS Exchange industry was considering remote hosting their groupware. Went no where. Then the new thing was co-hosting telecom. Went no where. In fact, remote-hosting is a good solution when an organization is small, but as soon as it starts to grow it becomes unmanageable. There ARE some examples where remote-hosting in large organizations that make sense, like Arizona State University's move from local IMAP servers to hosting on Gmail, or ASU's remote-hosting of Telecom with Century Link instead of running local CallManager servers - but the cost of these moves are easily dwarfed by the benefits as ASU can recognize the significant cost savings and the SLAs in education can be different than in other industries.
There's no such thing as too much money. This kind of thinking always leads to trouble and is short sighted. Best relatively recent example - The former US budget surplus. George W Bush thought the same thing that we had way too much money on-hand, so he slashed taxes, installed Medicare part D, and . . . uhm . . . other military things in the middle east somewhere. Steve Jobs' ultimate genius was his indifference toward shareholder opinion and focus on cash generated from operations (an example that all corporations should be following to avoid more booms and busts - the economy is something that needs to be managed, not let run amok.) It's the begining of the end of Apple's reign, it'll be in trouble again in 6 years.