- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Jolicloud to usher return of thin client
|
|
|
Comments (31)
Yet another cloud computing dreamer.
Yep. My new netbook (here in a few days) has an Intel Atom N280 1.6GHz processor, a hyperthreaded little marvel that benchmarks significantly faster than processors with higher clock speeds and 2GB RAM (after upgrade -- too expensive from the factory. Tell me: what won't it be able to do as a thick client? Why should I trust a third party with my data anyway?
I'm not a big supporter of RMS but he gets cloud computing 100% right. It's best completely avoided.
I'm not a big supporter of RMS but he gets cloud computing 100% right. It's best completely avoided.
I can't see cloud computing NOT becoming the predominant model over the next decade. Whether to trust it or not is another story. Keeping everything encrypted in the cloud is one way to mitigate privacy concerns.
@steven an idea for a project would be an application/script that automatically encrypts the data prior to uploading to the cload. I've been playing around with Ubuntu One, and a local application or extension to the client that performs the encrption would be really useful
Quoting:Why should I trust a third party with my data anyway?
Well, I guess 'they' d say: Because they make your data available worldwide, at any time, at any place, with any computer.
Most of the LXer readers are capable of doing that themselves. That would involve finding common 'older' hardware to act as a cheap IMAP server for mail, OpenLDAP for contacts, SFTP for file availability, forwarding ports in their ADSL / Cable modem and tadaaa, their it is, your very 'own' cloud.
However, I guess for +98% of the consumers (which would probably include me too, I run none of the above servers) that's too complex. Those people like the simplicity of 'everything being managed for them'. If not, GMail and Google Docs wouldn't be as popular as they are today.
And of course, when the servers are in the cloud, the consumer doesn't have to bother securing / updating them, which for most consumers would be / is a big hassle.
SFTP? Nah. WebDAV or NFS is much easier.
> they' d say: Because they make your data available worldwide, at any time, at any place, with any computer.
Then "they" don't live in any rural state in the US. Something like 1/3 of West Virginia has NO broadband access. Some of them can get satellite, but then the bandwidth limitations kill you. There is nowhere near universal coverage in the US. the situation is even worse in many other countries.
And that ignores the cross platform issues which destroy the any computer part of the argument.
Then "they" don't live in any rural state in the US. Something like 1/3 of West Virginia has NO broadband access. Some of them can get satellite, but then the bandwidth limitations kill you. There is nowhere near universal coverage in the US. the situation is even worse in many other countries.
And that ignores the cross platform issues which destroy the any computer part of the argument.
I agree with jdixon. I also wonder how well these cloud companies will do once a well pulicized security breach occurs, which it inevitably will.
@tracyanne
> I've been playing around with Ubuntu One, and a local application or extension to the client that performs the encrption would be really useful
Check out encfs which can already accomplish this. I have been using dropbox with that to exchange data seamlessly with encryption. Here's how to set it up: * install encfs or cryptkeeper for a GUI (I usually use the latter and have it in startup programs) * create an encrypted directory and mount it (encfs {encrypted dir} {unencrypted mount dir}) * for dropbox I normally create symbolic links from the required directories inside the {encrypted dir} to the dropbox synchronization directory; usually I keep one subdirectory inside the {encrypted dir} tree which is used for synchronization; by observing the directory listing of before and after creating that subdirectory, the encrypted name of that subdirectory can be easily figured out and symbolic link to that created inside dropbox synchronization directory * now on the other computers you can create similar setup with the same password for the encfs directory and have the symbolic links the same way
Looks like the above can be easily automated using a script.
> I've been playing around with Ubuntu One, and a local application or extension to the client that performs the encrption would be really useful
Check out encfs which can already accomplish this. I have been using dropbox with that to exchange data seamlessly with encryption. Here's how to set it up: * install encfs or cryptkeeper for a GUI (I usually use the latter and have it in startup programs) * create an encrypted directory and mount it (encfs {encrypted dir} {unencrypted mount dir}) * for dropbox I normally create symbolic links from the required directories inside the {encrypted dir} to the dropbox synchronization directory; usually I keep one subdirectory inside the {encrypted dir} tree which is used for synchronization; by observing the directory listing of before and after creating that subdirectory, the encrypted name of that subdirectory can be easily figured out and symbolic link to that created inside dropbox synchronization directory * now on the other computers you can create similar setup with the same password for the encfs directory and have the symbolic links the same way
Looks like the above can be easily automated using a script.
Krisum, sounds like a plan. I'll check that out.
Cloud-computing : "Micro$oft/Danger. Enough Said."
1 earlier comment in the full thread.
I think you people are being too hard on MS.
Really, even the FTC will not bring a case against them, because right in the name their customers are fore warned.
See it's so easy to defend my favorite vendor of quality software and services.
YBT
PS I await my check with strong anticipation, don't stint on the amount.
Really, even the FTC will not bring a case against them, because right in the name their customers are fore warned.
See it's so easy to defend my favorite vendor of quality software and services.
YBT
PS I await my check with strong anticipation, don't stint on the amount.
> despite its best efforts, Microsoft cannot seem to get the information back
Did they try a FOSS tool? There's probably something on Sourceforge that could do the job.
Did they try a FOSS tool? There's probably something on Sourceforge that could do the job.
Nice idea, bigg, but they're probably command-line.
Just think, if it weren't for MS we would have no one worthy to mock.
Just think, if it weren't for MS we would have no one worthy to mock.
> ...but they're probably command-line.
Actually, since the filesystems involved were undoubtedly NTFS, I don't think there are too many FOSS tools for dealing with them. We can do basic reads, writes, and size changes; but filesystem checks and repairs are probably beyond anything we have.
> ...if it weren't for MS we would have no one worthy to mock.
Oh how I wish that were true, TC. But demonstrating a disproof would get me into TOS violation territory rather quickly. :)
Actually, since the filesystems involved were undoubtedly NTFS, I don't think there are too many FOSS tools for dealing with them. We can do basic reads, writes, and size changes; but filesystem checks and repairs are probably beyond anything we have.
> ...if it weren't for MS we would have no one worthy to mock.
Oh how I wish that were true, TC. But demonstrating a disproof would get me into TOS violation territory rather quickly. :)
To all you foolish people, who think this was an accident: at least one site has speculated that this failure of the cloud enhances or at least lengthens the cash flow of MS's desktop offerings.
MS screw up? Never!
Watch MS crying while running to the nearest off shore bank to money launder their cash flow excess. So berate them, but it is too foolish to under rate them.
YBT
MS screw up? Never!
Watch MS crying while running to the nearest off shore bank to money launder their cash flow excess. So berate them, but it is too foolish to under rate them.
YBT
Um this might be a touch naive but how often did MS/Danger do backups? Weird old M$
ooh nice touch ybt.
I like Txt's conspiracy theory. I could almost believe that Microsoft would want to sabotage cloud computing and bring us all back to our nice, comfortable, Windows desktops. Remember, nobody actually runs Linux so we all must run Windows. I know this because Microsoft and their supporters keep publishing "market share" numbers that have to be true. Microsoft would never lie, would they?
The internet is nothing but a fad, anyway... innit?
Folks, please you forget my actual role on LXer, i.e. "resident shill / astroturfer" with some weak humor thrown in the mix. So do not put my income at risk with compliments. Remember even a completely broken clock / watch tells time twice a day albeit only once for the military versions.
So one has to reflect, whose interests are served best by the reported fiasco? MS gets a black eye, hardly - all is forgiven too soon or simply forgotten, but their long term interests seem to be well served by letting the cloud be the culprit. MS wins by playing up the damage on a program where they would be only a "me too ... " bit market player.
YBT
So one has to reflect, whose interests are served best by the reported fiasco? MS gets a black eye, hardly - all is forgiven too soon or simply forgotten, but their long term interests seem to be well served by letting the cloud be the culprit. MS wins by playing up the damage on a program where they would be only a "me too ... " bit market player.
YBT
Quoting:Remember even a completely broken clock / watch tells time twice a day albeit only once for the military versions.A stopped clock is no more useful than a smashed clock.
A clock that is consistently three minutes behind may always tell the wrong time, but it's still more useful than a stopped clock.
> A clock that is consistently three minutes behind may always tell the wrong time, but it's still more useful than a stopped clock.
And what use is a clock which tells you whatever time best suits its purposes at the moment? :)
And what use is a clock which tells you whatever time best suits its purposes at the moment? :)
> A clock that is consistently three minutes behind may always tell the wrong time
It always tells you the right time. You just have to read it correctly. In some places, the "time" is whatever is on the clock in the room you're working. Different rooms have different times, hence you have to read your watch correctly depending on where you will be working so you're not late.
> MS gets a black eye, hardly
It was obviously a hardware problem. It's so obvious that nobody bothered to collect evidence showing that it was a hardware problem.
It always tells you the right time. You just have to read it correctly. In some places, the "time" is whatever is on the clock in the room you're working. Different rooms have different times, hence you have to read your watch correctly depending on where you will be working so you're not late.
> MS gets a black eye, hardly
It was obviously a hardware problem. It's so obvious that nobody bothered to collect evidence showing that it was a hardware problem.
I hadn't heard what kind of hardware and OS this "Danger" company was using, but I did read that the fail took out the backup along with it.
Also disturbing is that these Sidekick devices don't store their contact information in NVRAM on the phone. It's all with the provider, or was at any rate.
Also disturbing is that these Sidekick devices don't store their contact information in NVRAM on the phone. It's all with the provider, or was at any rate.
> ...but I did read that the fail took out the backup along with it.
They were probably just running a RAID array without any other backup. If the controller fried, it may have corrupted the entire array beyond repair. Now, why they didn't have tape backup is another matter.
They were probably just running a RAID array without any other backup. If the controller fried, it may have corrupted the entire array beyond repair. Now, why they didn't have tape backup is another matter.
> I did read that the fail took out the backup along with it
Then they didn't really do a backup. Similarly, I know a lot of users who copy their data to a CD and stick it in their desk. If there's a fire, the backup is gone. Plus there's a copy of your data readily available to thieves.
Then they didn't really do a backup. Similarly, I know a lot of users who copy their data to a CD and stick it in their desk. If there's a fire, the backup is gone. Plus there's a copy of your data readily available to thieves.
The various rumors about Sidekick/Danger/Microsoft are:
-- They were upgrading the Storage Area Network and didn't do a backup, after which the upgrade failed
-- Sabotage
-- "dogfooding" ... and I did not make up that word, which means "eating their own dogfood," e.g. Microsoft replacing non-MS technologies with their own.
I did a bit of a roundup on Sidekick today but didn't post it to LXer because I feel it's more than a little OT (and will be so unless further details change that assessment).
But if you want the latest rumors, I do have 'em:
http://insidesocal.com/click/2009/10/sources-microsoft-forgo...
-- They were upgrading the Storage Area Network and didn't do a backup, after which the upgrade failed
-- Sabotage
-- "dogfooding" ... and I did not make up that word, which means "eating their own dogfood," e.g. Microsoft replacing non-MS technologies with their own.
I did a bit of a roundup on Sidekick today but didn't post it to LXer because I feel it's more than a little OT (and will be so unless further details change that assessment).
But if you want the latest rumors, I do have 'em:
http://insidesocal.com/click/2009/10/sources-microsoft-forgo...
According to SJVN, they did an upgrade without doing a backup:
http://www.itworld.com/security/80819/sidekick-microsofts-bi...
http://www.itworld.com/security/80819/sidekick-microsofts-bi...
Quoting:while neither Microsoft nor T-Mobile is saying exactly what happened, it appears that Danger didn't back-up its servers before launching into a major, and failed, SAN upgrade.
I don't know about you, but any where I've ever worked, not running a backup before any major upgrade is a firing offense. And, not just any firing, this is a "don't let your feet touch the floor as the security cops run you out of the building" crime.
This isn't just a tech problem though. This is an organizational problem. This is a case where firing them all, from the top down, and letting unemployment sort them out is appropriate. There is simply no way on Earth that Microsoft should have tried this 'upgrade' without knowing that a backup was set, checked, and ready-to-go.
LOL. So they didn't backup before an upgrade huh! What a bunch of morans.
Maybe if we are really lucky the same thing will happen to the source code for Windows 7
This is what happens if you are a monopoly. Standards fall.
Maybe if we are really lucky the same thing will happen to the source code for Windows 7
This is what happens if you are a monopoly. Standards fall.
Quoting:Maybe if we are really lucky the same thing will happen to the source code for Windows 7"Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)" -- Linus Torvalds
Given the likelihood of Windows 7's code already having leaked, I doubt it will disappear.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Which is fine as far as it goes. Assuming you make the thin client experience better than the thick client one. Which nobody has shown any sign of doing so far. And assuming you ignore the data ownership and network availability/speed/bandwidth issues, all of which have been discussed here in the past.
But the real problem is simpler even that that. The above proposition assumes that the netbook is only capable of being a thin client. Which is demonstrably not true. Allow me to post the specs of an off lease Dell Latitude D610, which is somewhere between 3 and 4 years old now, available at a competitive off lease seller for $235 plus shipping:
Dell LATITUDE D610, Pentium M 1.6GHz, 512 MB, 40.0 GB HD, CD-RW DVD Combo
We've used the D600 series of machines at work for the past 6 years or so. While getting a bit long of tooth for everything the company is throwing at machines nowadays (don't ask, you really don't want to know), this machine is still perfectly serviceable for almost all uses. However, except for having a CD/DVD drive, this machine is worse in almost every way than any currently available netbook, and given the advances in processors and memory, probably slower. Thus demonstrating that, given the right operating system, any currently available netbook is more than capable of operating as a full thick client computer.
I know, I'm preaching to the choir, but sometimes I feel the need to vent when I read yet another story misrepresenting the nature of netbooks.