|
Similar - but at least with the NC you kept the data in-house, and available over a fast (for the time) link. And you knew who to shout at (or more usually beg to) when it went missing...try that with a data centre half a world away and run out of the back of a cyber cafe! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I remember the "thin client" period... in my nightmares. Citrix lives in my personal sh*t pit along with lotus, synamtec and quite a few others.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: It's like the world is trying to go back to the "mainframe" model that we worked so hard to get away from when the PC became main-stream...
And Windows 8 is a big step back in the direction of the dumb terminal...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: It's like the world is trying to go back to the "mainframe" model that we worked so hard to get away from when the PC became main-stream...
Yeah. In the 35 years or so that I've been in the field that's been my observation. Things keep flopping back-and-forth. First mainframes with dumb terminals, then PC's where your data is really yours, then an attempt at "dumb" terminals again (remember the Web Terminal?) then to Client/Server, then to Web, then to "cloud".
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I can't think of a better way to do things than to hand all your data over to the lowest bidder to look after, to backup, to not steal, and to protect from everybody else.
I once made myself unpopular with management when they were announcing some data entry outsourcing to another country.
I asked, "How will we know our data is safe?"
They said, "It will be spelled out in the contracts."
I asked, "Under whose country will the contract be enforced?"
They had no answer.
Cloud could have the same problem.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: It's like the world is trying to go back to the "mainframe" model that we worked so hard to get away from when the PC became main-stream
I spy with my little eye: an IBM conspiracy.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Not just you, it's just a new buzzword for outsourcing.
|
|
|
|
|
We live in an age where connectivity is assumed...to the point that many businesses simply cannot operate without it, especially those processing payments. The problem is that there is no offline mode in most systems, so everything stops when the connection is down. 
A long time ago, a very crooked good salesman pre-sold a 'web based' point of sale application of ours, to be delivered in 6 weeks. All work on the application, which was nearly complete, was as a desktop app. I gave them their 'web based' application on time...ActiveX on a webpage! It even had a built in offline mode! The customer never questioned it...to them, it loaded in a web page, and so was 'web based'.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
People have been saving data on servers since the beginning of servers. Cloud is a fancy term for servers/server farms. So, you have been at risk since day one.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a vast difference between internal servers and external servers. You have control over the internal servers. You do not have control over external servers, especially the security of external servers.
Fletcher Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
No. but Google, etc. would go out of business if they could not keep their cloud servers secure(ish).
I completely agree with the view point that if a hacker want's in, bad enough, they will get in. The only other alternative, is to live in a cave in total isolation from the world.
|
|
|
|
|
I agreed that data has been stored on servers. The "Cloud" I'm referring to are those that like Google, Amazon or MS Azure where everything is off loaded to third party to house and manage. Snowden kept pop into my head where we can make technologies safeguard intrusions, but that system admin who has complete control and can access everything on the farm, which I'm not ready to trust him.
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: but that system admin who has complete control and can access everything on the farm, which I'm not ready to trust him.
Point well taken.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Cloud is a fancy term for servers/server farms.
Not exactly. Cloud is a fancy term for virtualization. The difference between a cloud and "just a bunch of servers" is similar to the difference between RAID or VFS and "just a bunch of disks". In a "non-cloud" data centre computing services are bound to specific physical hardware--you have a physical box that is a file server, another box that does email, another to run the website and so forth. You could consolidate these all on a single physical box but there would be scalability issues as well as stability, as the various services could interfere with the operations of others--there is a lack of isolation.
"Cloudy" data centres take the concept of RAID or virtual file systems in storage and extend that to the server level. Just like where you have one file system that spans multiple disks and the data could be on any one (or more) of the physical drives, in the cloud you can have a virtual machine or container that handles the delivery of services within its own isolated environment that could be stored or executed in any physical location. The benefits in efficiency and reliability and control over resources can be enormous.
Now that said, I hate the term "Cloud"--it is a buzzword for a modern approach to something that has actually been done since the mainframe days. I also think that the larger "public cloud" services are ruining the internet. Actually all very large services damage the internet. Facebook is ruining the internet by centralizing social media for example. I think there is a problem with companies avoiding responsibility by farming out their IT to Google, Microsoft and so on. Yes, for a small business, farming this out is justified. For a company employing hundreds or more it is irresponsible. Go ahead and leverage virtualization, but don't lock yourself into Google or Microsoft or whatever service and ignore plans to bring it in house, or at least co-locate somewhere within your control. If too many people pass their responsibility to too few of these big public services it is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
Good to know and thanks for the education. I bookmarked this because it is a good explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: government
They not in that businesses...I know of government projects where no internet and the networking between sites is done over protected, private lines...So no cloud there and there will not be...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Secret Service? NSA? MI6? 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm in the federal government and most of our stuff are on the cloud.
|
|
|
|
|
Like details of cops and so? I doubt that...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: I can trust the security technology but I just don't trust the people handling
my data.
Imagine what could have happened if a goverment had unrestricted access to digital communication and could outlaw encryption, say, in Europe, roughly sixty years ago? Again, it is not about the situation now - we now obviously have trustworthy politicians - it is about what can (and eventually, somewhere, will) happen. And sadly quite often, wartime changes the rules of what is private and what is required to win.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, trusty politician. Obama just open a new legislation to allow government access private data, if approved, it makes me cringe even more about cloud computing.
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: Obama just open a new legislation to allow government access private data
A Dutch proverb tells you to trust your host as much as he trusts you.
Cringing is not good enough. Once you realize the danger, you'll loose some sleep.
What companies decide to do is up to them; little is really lost if a company ceases to exist. Decide for yourself if you want to give away information - in the wrong time, your life could depend on a FaceBook post.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
It's just another tool in our arsenal. ... and like all "new" technology tools, it becomes the new "new" thing. Market analysts and CIO's drink the Kool Aid and go in to rapture, consultants jump on the gravy train and our worlds become a little more chaotic for a while.
Linux was going to be the end of MS, Netflix was going to be the end of movie theatres, ... way to many examples to list, but you get the drift.
After a while there's a collective shaking of heads, sense is (somewhat) restored and we get on with doing what we do. We might even find the new tool appropriately useful and start using it.
... and, of course, if it isn't new, give it a new, catchy name!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Here, I corrected your "mistakes" for you:
PhilLenoir wrote: It's just another buzzword in management's arsenal.
Fixed! 
|
|
|
|
|
Streaming services are doing a pretty darn good job of reducing traditional movie theatre traffic.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
