[Polpolion]

yes and sandwich runs HLP from a server in his basement

edit: cobbled together on garbage picked hardware, no less

edit2: because it's clear there are still huge misconceptions on what cloud computing is: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cloud-computing/cloud-computing.htm

[S-99]

if i wanted to terminal into a mainframe id have lived in the '70s.

I really don't see cloud computing any differently than you do. Our computers are terminals to the internet. Accessing google docs or whatever would be accessing a mainframe.

It really seems to be a recycling of an old way of using computers for the modern day where all of your work gets done on some big iron mainframe somewhere else. I just think it's ridiculous (and a huge waste of money) to relegate computers with a quad core with 4gigs of ram and a terabyte hard drive to cloud computing (if cloud computing becomes that retardedly prominent). If the computer is going to be a terminal, then i wouldn't be using something that can stand on it's own two feet for a terminal (that quad core example can stand on it's own two feet; it's its own big iron).

Instead of cloud computing, there's software that costs money to install on your hard drive. If a penny scraper, there's software to install on your hard drive for free.

Cloud computing, the work your getting done is actually getting done on some other computer that's not in front of you. **** the cloud since i guess we don't know what it is so we don't need it

megaupload?

[Nuke]

we know exactly what cloud computing is, and we still dont like it. i may bring up points loosely related to cloud computing (call home licensing), but that does not mean i dont know what it is. i want to run my own copies of software on my own computer, i do not want to be spied on by corporations when i do this. i do not want to run them on some server cluster or even a bonerfied supercomputer. these systems share time with multiple users and will not offer much benifit over an above average computer on a per user basis, and is also subject to lag, downtime, and periods of low performance at peak user capacity.

[Polpolion]

we know exactly what cloud computing is, and we still dont like it. i may bring up points loosely related to cloud computing (call home licensing), but that does not mean i dont know what it is. i want to run my own copies of software on my own computer, i do not want to be spied on by corporations when i do this. i do not want to run them on some server cluster or even a bonerfied supercomputer. these systems share time with multiple users and will not offer much benifit over an above average computer on a per user basis, and is also subject to lag, downtime, and periods of low performance at peak user capacity.

This is stupid. You either don't know what cloud computing is or you fail to grasp its applications. I've said it before and I'll say it once again: your average household will not be what benefits most from cloud computing, and it's going to stay that way for the near future. Webhosts, universities, companies and similar large organizations stand the most to gain. Continuing to mindlessly tell me that you hate cloud computing because you want your own copies of software to run on your own computer does nothing but tell me that you don't understand what cloud computing is because that does not presently define all of what cloud computing is.

[BlueFlames]

A thought:

Cloud computing introduces possible points of failure, over which you have little to no control.  Isn't that what you want to avoid in your backup setup and productivity software?

[S-99]

This is stupid. You either don't know what cloud computing is or you fail to grasp its applications. I've said it before and I'll say it once again: your average household will not be what benefits most from cloud computing, and it's going to stay that way for the near future. Webhosts, universities, companies and similar large organizations stand the most to gain. Continuing to mindlessly tell me that you hate cloud computing because you want your own copies of software to run on your own computer does nothing but tell me that you don't understand what cloud computing is because that does not presently define all of what cloud computing is.

Cloud computing appears to be useful to whoever it's useful to (i would say cloud computing is not useful to a bunch of us, but rather to others). Those wanting to save money on not needing to buy a whole bunch of software licenses and installing on a bunch of individual computers. In this case, big companies managing lots of computers. Although, i think it's more worth people managing lots and lots of computers and are into cloud computing to lower costs, would perhaps be better off setting up their own internal terminal and network boot setup. With or without free software, i don't see why companies would need to rely on third party cloud computing big iron for stuff like google docs. I know there's more than google docs, and handier stuff than google docs (google docs is all i can bring to mind right now).

[Nuke]

we fully grasp the concept. i hold a god damned it degree. i have set up at least a dozen terminal server + thin client networks. i use terminal services on a regular basis. i have used a actual old skool mainframe. cloud computing is not different from these kind of systems at all. it is only scaled up and uses the internet instead of a local network, and server clusters instead of a single central computer. i have read your article and while it was poorly written it did not contain anything that i did not already know about cloud computing. i have trouble seeing any potential in the concept beyond web services and remote license management (yes this is becoming a major application of cloud computing and this is why im not a fan of the concept at all), nor do i see any performance gain in using remote computers over local systems especially with how dirt cheap a pc is these days.

having your own system, even in a buisness environment, gives you a more consistent level of performance and will be more responsive over cloud computing (because usage varies as does network performance). any cost savings will be lost in the cost of additional throughput required to use these applications (businesses pay a hefty sum for high throughput connections). you will still require a large it base just to maintain the cloud clients, they will still need to be networked, routed, serviced, etc. that is in addition to the cloud service fees.

from the security side of things you could probably do a lot of damage to a company by unleashing a dos attack against their cloud service provider(s). there is also nothing left to fall back to if the service is down. with current networks you still have the local machine available even if the network is completely out of commission. if you loose the internet you still have your local servers. there are more points of failure. cloud service goes down at either end, or you loose your internet connection, you have a bunch of worthless thin clients that can do nothing by themselves. you have 2 networks that absolutely must be connected throughout buisness hours. either side goes out and your ****ed. if i ran a big company the last thing i want is a bunch of employees sitting around doing nothing because their cloud service is down.

[Klaustrophobia]

can you stop throwing the "that's not cloud computing" at us please?  what you call it is irrelevant to the point nuke is making.  furthermore, "cloud computing" hardly has a concrete definition, especially recently.  companies ARE throwing the "cloud" tag on many of the types of things nuke is describing that you are foaming at the mouth calling NOT cloud computing.  if we can't get past this point, i propose that we substitute "decentralized file hosting" or whatever else makes everyone happy in its place and carry on.

[Polpolion]

nor do i see any performance gain in using remote computers over local systems especially with how dirt cheap a pc is these days.

I don't see how you can claim this. Sure, Microsoft office might not be getting any faster but if you have problems that have parallelization in their solution, why wouldn't the cloud give you a huge performance gain? Maybe it's just me hearing too much about parallelization at uni, but the ability to draw on the processing power of a large number of computers would be kind of great. This is what I've always would be the biggest benefit of cloud computing; you'd be able to design your programs to run on a nearly arbitrarily large number of threads. Even in business applications, you only have so many employees that could possibly be running licensed software at a time, so you can just purchase a system designed to accommodate that; there's no real need for a cloud based license system, whereas with distributed programming, I've always imagined the cloud would let you do things that would simply take too long to be feasible on a pc.

the dos attacks are a good point though, I hadn't thought about how the cloud would respond to that. I guess uptime is an issue, but afaik google and amazon both have fairly decent track records in that respect. past that, many places already are pretty dependent on their internet anyway. Data processing, for example: unless you're lucky enough to be getting the data in the same spot that you do work on it you'll probably need internet to get it, otherwise you'll be stuck anyway.

@klaust: Companies can call whatever they want anything they want, all that will happen is that I will hate them.

[Nuke]

I don't see how you can claim this. Sure, Microsoft office might not be getting any faster but if you have problems that have parallelization in their solution, why wouldn't the cloud give you a huge performance gain? Maybe it's just me hearing too much about parallelization at uni, but the ability to draw on the processing power of a large number of computers would be kind of great. This is what I've always would be the biggest benefit of cloud computing; you'd be able to design your programs to run on a nearly arbitrarily large number of threads. Even in business applications, you only have so many employees that could possibly be running licensed software at a time, so you can just purchase a system designed to accommodate that; there's no real need for a cloud based license system, whereas with distributed programming, I've always imagined the cloud would let you do things that would simply take too long to be feasible on a pc.

heres the thing. in order for cloud computing to be economically viable, you will want to serve as many users with one server as possible. you will also want to scale your cluster based on usage, the idea is you want to keep the server as close to peak usage as possible. if a server isnt being used, it is reallocated to other jobs. ultimately you end up in a situation where all resources are shared. you might have 512 cpu cores in the cluster, but you might also be serving 1000 simultaneous users. that equates to about half a cpu per person. when you compare that with say a dual core, or even a single core pc, you have lesser performance in the cloud, and thats not accounting for network latency. if you needed a lot of power, like doing fluid simulation, or rendering, you create a situation where each user may require a dedicated server or 2, and this becomes less viable. you are better off renting a couple hours on a super computer.

[yuezhi]

megaupload?

megaupload?

i wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition to switch focus

[BloodEagle]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! ... to switch focus.

[LordMelvin]

No, why, an unerring focus is one of our primary weapons...

[yuezhi]

it can't be helped. to sum it up:

• internet blackout
• megaupload RIP
• an0n attacks!
• similiar storage sites do something

now that i think about it anyone could predict this a decade in advance.

[Aardwolf]

Piracy does not need to be combated. Piracy should not be combated.

Any time someone makes a claim like "piracy costs us X dollars", someone ought to immediately yell in that person's face "no it doesn't, supply and demand doesn't work that way."

[Bobboau]

all this *****ing about cloud computing, you know you CAN run your own cloud...

[Klaustrophobia]

Piracy should not be combated.

i don't know about that, but it certainly doesn't need the witch hunt.  it's going to be hard to shut down the entire industry that's sprung up based on copyright litigation though.  part of me wants to see all copyright infringement suddenly stop.  just to see what these assclowns do then.

[Scotty]

Piracy does not need to be combated. Piracy should not be combated.

Yeah, and department stores shouldn't have those stupid security tags that keep you from walking out with them real casually.  I hate those things, makes it so much harder to get a good pair of jeans.

**** that, it's a crime and should be combated.  I don't give two ****s about supply and demand in this context, but stealing is still stealing.

[The E]

Stealing is, indeed, stealing.

But there's a difference between the actual damages caused, and the hysteria surrounding the issue. No, I do not believe that there's no damage. Anyone claiming that is stupid.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

i keep all my data on 4 hard drives. 1 in each of my good computers, 1 in an external enclosure and a 4th one i keep at my sister's house. nothing short of a tsunami or a nuclear war could make me loose data. super critical stuff i keep a copy of on my hacked 4g ipod.

an online backup service would not suit me well, as i have a lot of data, and a capped internet connection.

I hate saying this...but this. **** the "cloud." If I'm making backups anyway, why not just make them local? I have almost 2 Tb of random crap that's all backed up in triple redundancy and my main PC has a RAID 6 config (yeah, I'm a bit paranoid, but still). There's a great deal of personal information included in all that and, to me, putting it on a server I don't control is like going to Walmart and handing out copies of my driver's license. I'm depending on the good faith and conduct of other people. Since other people are mostly dicks, this is a bad idea.

Bit more on-topic: MegaUpload was playing with fire and got burned, apparently, but it still disturbs me that the government can make a site go dark like that.