His solution is even more Bandwith hungry
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Sep 24, 2008 5:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:We’ve spent years web-enabling our applications, creating virtualized server infrastructures, and developing Web 2.0 technology—to what end? Are you going to tell me that we’re going to continue to use 2GB, 3GB (or larger) heavy desktop operating systems and continually boost our LAN and WAN network bandwidth just so we can run those heavy desktops to use our web applications? Really? Huh?, my desktop doesn't require any LAN or WAN network bandwidth. Quoting:A web-based desktop is a brilliant, scalable, inexpensive solution to a very difficult problem: What to do with the desktop. Put your desktop on the web, let your users choose which interface look and feel they want to use (no more religious wars between Mac, Windows, or Linux zealots), use online applications like Google Docs, Zoho, or even stream your own purchased ones for the users that want them. This solution does, in fact it requires that we quote: "continually boost our LAN and WAN network bandwidth", so we can run his web based desktop. Bandwidth we can barely get hold of as things stand. So where is this bandwidth going to come from, if there is already not enough of it to run our quote: "heavy desktops to use our web applications" |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 24, 2008 10:24 AM EDT |
I find it hilarious that one of the big downsides of VDI is licensing complexity and cost that Microsoft threw up. |
| garymax Sep 24, 2008 11:13 AM EDT |
What is it with these cloud computing zealots? They always throw Google apps up as the solution. I can see it now: we all go to cloud computing using a grand total of four applications (from Google, of course.). Get real. Until the current desktop experience can be reliably replicated on the so-called cloud computing network (with every current app ported to the web 2.0 framework), cloud computing will be a pipe dream. As for me, I'll stick with my "fat client" in full control of my apps and data, thank you very much. |
| gus3 Sep 24, 2008 11:41 AM EDT |
Not to mention that the slightest little glitch on their part will make your system, and you, throw up. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 24, 2008 1:21 PM EDT |
I have to say that I'm a big believer in cloud apps, but I've gone from contemplating a full move to things like Google Docs to a hybrid in which I still use a lot of traditional applications. I'm not quite sure what Microsoft is doing, and if it's anything like this, but I think there needs to be flexibility when it comes to accessing cloud-based data. The user should be able to access and modify that data with a cloud-based app, but the file should also be available over the network to be accessed and modfied by a client-based app. There's nothing too revolutionary about that. We've been accessing and editing documents on servers from our desktop clients (or terminals) since the timeshare days in the '70s and probably before. So it shouldn't be that big of a leap to have cloud data and the freedom and flexibility with which to deal with that data in any way we choose. How hard would it be to have OpenOffice Writer, for instance, open a document directly from the cloud? With the proper encryption and security, I think this is a very attainable goal (that goal being melding traditional client-based applications and cloud-based data). |
| techiem2 Sep 24, 2008 1:28 PM EDT |
Yes...except that when your (or your cloud host's) network connection goes down, you no longer have access to your data. |
| bigg Sep 24, 2008 1:34 PM EDT |
How is a cloud-based data storage solution better than USB? USB is faster, safer, and more reliable. If you have so much data that it doesn't fit on a USB drive, then you're really going to be in trouble when you move to the network. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 24, 2008 1:50 PM EDT |
You don't need all of the data all of the time, just some of the data some of the time. Sure there are problems with network reliability and the cloud. I work for a business in which we run everything off of a server 50 or more miles away. When that connection goes down, we have big problems. It only happens once or twice a year, but it's still a pain in the a**. At this point, I think it pays to have all that cloud data synced with a second provider to guard against such outages. And I hope that the bigger cloud providers either have or will develop redundancy as far as backups and alternate network routes to guard against downtime. That's the theory, anyway. I've always said that the cloud isn't meant for a company with deep pockets, a well-trained IT department, all the equipment they could want, and policies that guard against data loss and downtime. Instead, the cloud is for those people running haphazardly assembled network and storage solutions that don't get the proper maintenance, security or backups. A large number of those kinds of people and companies would be happy to have Google, Amazon or IBM do the heavy lifting that they're unable or unwilling to do for themselves. My ISP, for instance, has moved its e-mail accounts from their own servers to Gmail. You'd think that if anybody could run a mail server, it would be an ISP. But they see value in letting Google run the thing. I still get IMAP and POP just like I always have. It doesn't look any different in that respect. But when I use the Web interface, it's Gmail (with which I'm very unfamiliar and not terribly happy, but that's another story). |
| garymax Sep 24, 2008 1:50 PM EDT |
One more thing. People are not considering the hardware implications. All of the cloud proponents focus on the portability and the convenience of accessing your data from anywhere. "The OS doesn't matter anymore", they'll say. But once you move to the cloud and change the hardware, you take away the individual's right to choose. The right to choose their operating system; the right to choose their distribution (in Linux); the right to choose just about any aspect of their computing experience. The system forces you to accept someone else's idea of how a computing system should work, as well as how you access your own data. And, as it has been pointed out many times, when the network goes down, you're down. At best, cloud-based computing should complement what we have but should not seek to replace it. We'd lose too many freedoms, and we'd be exposed to too many variables over which we would have zero control. Personal computing is just that: personal. It's about choice. Cloud computing, on the other hand, is similar to socialism--only applied to the networked world. It's impersonal by nature. You're forced to accept whatever you're handed in the name of convenience. And it has flaws in it. |
| gus3 Sep 24, 2008 2:04 PM EDT |
@techie: Or, worse yet, the server's SSL private key gets hacked. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 24, 2008 3:56 PM EDT |
One of the biggest uses for the cloud is data backup, and that's a good point of entry for many. Having data mirrored on a company's servers and a cloud provider is one way to leverage it. A lot of this is just semantics. Anybody can set up a networked system with access over the Internet to data and applications. The hardware and software can be wholly owned and controlled by its users, if that's what you want. |
| azerthoth Sep 24, 2008 4:12 PM EDT |
IMHO cloud computing is just not viable for the masses. Considering that my thumbdrive already goes where ever I do, that there is a persistant OS on it to boot from already and if not booting from it all the files on it are still accessable by just plugging it into a win/mac/*nix machine. The bandwidth just does not exist for it globally. If you come to where I am and expect that ou will have any kind of data transfer speed, and are relying on that for your mission, you will be well and truly hosed. The only links to reach out are sat links, there is not one single strand of copper, let alone fiber connecting us to the rest of the world. Not to put too fine a point on it, but more of the world is in the same condition than is not. The infrastructure doe snot exist, and a good look at the world economy right now makes it a fair guess that in ten years it still wont exist. You want your data where you are when you are? Get a thumbdrive. |
| rijelkentaurus Sep 24, 2008 4:26 PM EDT |
Quoting: How is a cloud-based data storage solution better than USB? How many Googles have you lost? |
| bigg Sep 24, 2008 4:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:How many Googles have you lost? None, but I've never lost a USB drive either. You do lose your privacy with Google, not to mention the occasional loss of access, and potential for security problems. |
| rijelkentaurus Sep 24, 2008 4:54 PM EDT |
I've lost 10-20 USB drives. If you have lost none, you are an anomaly, not a typical example. I've also had USB drives crap out and not work anymore. Point taken on privacy, however, and connectivity is not a huge problem...or if it is, it needs addressed on its own. Losing a USB drive is a greater security potential than using Google. EDIT: I am speaking of thumb drives, not full or laptop sized drives. |
| tracyanne Sep 24, 2008 4:59 PM EDT |
I've never lost a USB thumb drive. I still have the 32Meg thumb drive I got with a laptop I bought 6 years ago. |
| azerthoth Sep 24, 2008 5:18 PM EDT |
I have yet to loose a thumb drive either. I have retired a few, but never lost. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 24, 2008 5:48 PM EDT |
I just ordered a couple of new Compact Flash chips. One is going to become the main drive for my converted VIA-based thin client. I'll back up /home onto a USB thumb drive, and we'll see how long the CF lasts before I kill it ... I'm going to keep a CD drive on the IDE controller long enough to install the OS (the exact one I haven't decided) and then run off the CF card (which is how the thin client was originally configured, just not to run a full OS). Yep, this is off-topic all right, but I just thought I'd share. |
| jdixon Sep 24, 2008 6:14 PM EDT |
> I've never lost a USB thumb drive. Ditto. I've had one die, but I've never lost one. |
| garymax Sep 24, 2008 10:31 PM EDT |
I've given a few USB thumb drives away but never lost any. I use them to store my Slackware repository. Ahhh...good ol' Slackware... |
| gus3 Sep 24, 2008 11:56 PM EDT |
I've never lost a flash drive. ...if you don't count the one I sent through the wash. |
| tracyanne Sep 25, 2008 12:48 AM EDT |
clean data. |
| jezuch Sep 25, 2008 1:58 AM EDT |
Wow, this forum is full of anomalies ;) Count me as one more :) |
| jacog Sep 25, 2008 6:36 AM EDT |
I sent one through the wash, and it survived! Erm, what was the topic again? |
| tracyanne Sep 25, 2008 6:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:Erm, what was the topic again? Copmuters become more and more powerful, and we're going to use them as glorified smart terminals (apparently) to run web applications from Google. |
| NoDough Sep 25, 2008 1:20 PM EDT |
I lost a thumb drive for about a week, when it turned up in my car. I've also sent one through the wash and it survived as well. |
| rijelkentaurus Sep 25, 2008 3:31 PM EDT |
Weird people! :P |
| jacog Sep 26, 2008 5:25 AM EDT |
Thumb Drive Adventures. Fascinating reading, really. :P Keep an eye out for the riveting sequel: Index Finger Drive Adventures |
| jdixon Sep 26, 2008 10:48 AM EDT |
> I sent one through the wash, and it survived! Yeah, I've done that too. I think it's the one which eventually died though. |
| happyfeet Sep 26, 2008 11:12 AM EDT |
@jacog - That reminds me of this: http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20080909/the-2gb-usb-real-thu... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!