Am I the only person that doesn't like the CLOUD?

[rdl]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that there are other reasons more important to me that I won't use a cloud back up service. It's an individual choice for everyone I suppose.

Can I ask what those reasons are?  Just curious. 

The NSA being one, I'm sure, and one could encrypt before they upload to fix that pretty easily.  In fact I think one could purpose a Raspberry Pi or some other small single board PC to do the encryption transparently for you as you upload & download.

1. I have no need for this type of service.
2. I don't trust them.
3. As far as I'm concerned the safety and security is unproven.
4. I'm a suspicious, grumpy old man.

[Rigby]

All fine answers. 

I am also suspicious.  However, I base service acceptability on the legal documents the service offers me which describe their obligations and what my expectations should be.

[LabSpokane]

Most people grossly overestimate their ability to provide secure, reliable, and scalable storage and computing services. Everything has its issues, but I have far more faith in AWS and similar services than in any go-it-alone, homegrown IT solution.

[Noise Floor]

Like all things, depends on the application.

But to your concern, no I don't trust cloud solutions fully and believe the marketing of them to be exaggerated to make everyone feel like "everyone is doing it".

[AlfBaz]

So far, I have only seen people "like" the cloud if they have large data sets that need to be served to multiple data consumers.

Is there anything the cloud can offer a single user who only ever works on a single device?

[SL4P]

Is there anything the cloud can offer a single user who only ever works on a single device?

Portability & vulnerability

[Rigby]

OK, so all of you going on about security concerns need to start citing something or you're just talking out of your bottoms.  "Bad feelings" don't count.

[miguelvp]

For a business standpoint the Cloud (as in Cloud Computing) makes a lot of sense if you provide web based services. You might get very high peaks at release times then it settles to say 10% of the spike capacity.
The alternative would be to purchase those servers and backbone infrastructure that can deal with the peak and then you have 90% of your assets just sitting idle. Later when you need to upgrade you have to upgrade them all, so renting computing from AWS, Google, Terramak, Azure, RackSpace, etc (about 10 mayor ones with over $1 Billion revenues per year which you know they are not going to disappear under your feet) at pretty competitive prices.

For home use, it's silly because a virtual cloud computer with virtual GPUs streaming data to your Ethernet enabled TV with keyboard and mouse will cost you more than a dedicated system at home if you use it often.

Then again Google for example only charges per usage so if you use the system rarely you always have an up to date system accessible from any H.264 decoding networked appliance. But of course you can't use it to program your dev kits.

As for connectivity, being close to the backbone gives you fast access to the internet, so as long as you can stream to your PC with lowish latency then it's transparent.

There are also benefits when you expose your works to outsourcing, because they can work on your project but they really don't have access to the data,  they can only manipulate it to do their tasks.

And of course there are more benefits, but this is just a first glance.

It's always been a cycle between mainframes and desktops (remember x windows terminals) now we are getting to a centralize cycle since the Cloud computing resources will become cheaper than owning your own similar system with processing on demand. Later desktops will find some innovation that will make them king again.

So there is a place for the Cloud, maybe not for most yet but it might in the near future before it all flips back to desktops and home computers being cheaper.

My feeling is that we are getting into a commodity cycle, you need 100 virtual Quadro cards on your virtual computer for 1 hour? so be it, only pay for that hour and then you are back to a more trivial system, all on demand.

With the money involved surely there is demand for it.

[MrZwing]

I like the possibility to store some files in the cloud like dropbox, but I HATE slowly being forced to use it with my phone (google) and computer (microsoft) always ask "Hi store everything about you life on our servers.... Trust us plz". Thinking of making a small computer like a Pi as a private cloud storage so I don't have to rely on other unknown services.

I might be a bit paranoid but I like to try too keep my personal info off the internet. and don't get me started with cloud computing where they try to fool us with "oh you can buy a cheap box to hook up to a super computer to play high end games" when I know what they really say is "buy a cheap little computer and then you have to pay us to get enough power to play pong or pac-man, high-def AAA-games? well that won't come cheap".
Long live Private Hardware!

MrZ

[bingo600]

I like "OwnCloud" 

Because the data is on my own disks.

Otherwise i'm avoiding cloud as storage , and "Apple phone backup etc"

I do have a VPS based server though , but for specific purposes.


/Bingo

[ovnr]

"The Cloud" is fine, but most cloud services aren't.

I'll happily spin up VPSes everywhere to serve whatever needs I have. I'm not, however, going to trust a magical cloud backup service; if I use one, it's to store data I've encrypted myself.

In short: If it runs my own software, or my own software interfaces with it, it's fine. Otherwise, no thanks. And the IoT is mostly dumb, because there is no provision for running your own server - and I'm not going to have my lightbulbs connect to the internet.


(And for those that go "But it's more accessible to just push stuff to Dropbox, etc!" - well I don't much like leaving the house, so eff off.)

[Rigby]

OK, so all of you going on about security concerns need to start citing something or you're just talking out of your bottoms.  "Bad feelings" don't count.

They most certainly do.

No, they do not.  Not when there are facts available.  Facts trump feelings.

Ordinary people can't be expected to independently verify the security preparedness of a cloud service provider.

Then you go online and you ask someone.  Or, you contact the provider in question. 

I am so over this "a regular person can't be expected to do X" statement I keep seeing everywhere.  I read it as something between "I don't want to do X" and "I'm too stupid to do X."  I can't argue with the laziness portion, but if you're lazy, just say you're lazy so people can stop wasting time trying to help you.  People that can form the thought "I'm too stupid to do X" and type it out, simply aren't.

Too long have people hidden beneath the "eh, I can't" shelter.  Fuck you.  Get up and do it.

Not you specifically, wilfred.  I'm using the improper form of "you" meaning "whomever reads this."

[tszaboo]

It is bad enough that NSA is sticking it's nose into my personal emails (yes Google, I blame you), I dont need them to stick it into my files.

[Rigby]

Blame the US Congress for this.  The NSA just does what it does.  Congress okayed it.

[tszaboo]

Blame the US Congress for this.  The NSA just does what it does.  Congress okayed it.

You know, millions of people were and are killed because "I just do what I was told, this is my job, you should blame the system". Not to mention, even if (remote chance) they are just "protecting the US soil, and looking for turrists", there really was no point of tapping Angela Merkel's phone. She is not a terrorist. And this is jut the tip of the iceberg.
Really, you can point at people, that they are responsible. The facts are: Your country breaks international laws, repeatedly, on a massive scale. Cloud is just another accessory for this.

[Mechanical Menace]

Blame the US Congress for this.  The NSA just does what it does.  Congress okayed it.

Technically they didn't otherwise the NSA's actions wouldn't have been illegal. Just because no one has been prosecuted doesn't mean they haven't broken the law. If I'd have done what the NSA, GCHQ, Australia, New Zealand or Canada had been doing I'd have disappeared and had a secret "trial." If I'd have accidentally done what HSBC knowingly did I'd be lucky to end up in America's illegal concentration camp in Cuba. The whistleblowers who did the right and legal thing have had more shit than those who broke the laws, i.e. they got some shit.

[zapta]

Blame the US Congress for this.  The NSA just does what it does.  Congress okayed it.

I see more pull from NSA than push from Congress.

[zapta]

OK, so all of you going on about security concerns need to start citing something or you're just talking out of your bottoms.  "Bad feelings" don't count.

It's the old  I-don't-have-a-good-counter-argument-so-I-will-set-a-high-bar-for-the-other-side  trick.

It's their data and they can use whatever criteria to decide if they like the cloud or not. Same applies to you.

[Rigby]

Zapta, yes, of course.

My point is that people aren't making decisions based on facts.  That's their prerogative, certainly, but don't declare "The Cloud" bad because your gut ate too many enchiladas last night. 

Who runs "The Cloud?"  Who owns it?

You CAN'T have an opinion on "The Cloud" because there isn't just one.  There are literally thousands of cloud providers and they ALL have different terms of service.  Many even allow you, the customer, to determine where your data is stored, how it is replicated, and some even force you to keep your own encryption keys, so that neither the provider nor any three-letter government agency can decrypt your stuff.

But I'm supposed to distrust that because "TEH CLOUDZ IS BAD MMKAY!"

[Galenbo]

I don't like people talking about the cloud.

Usually clueless managerist clerks, just signed some dont-know-what-contract for some dont-know-what-service.
My stone-age-response to their retarded sentenses is usually: Is your data stored in a tier-2 or tier-3 datacentre?

Heum. Heum.

[Mechanical Menace]

But I'm supposed to distrust that because "TEH CLOUDZ IS BAD MMKAY!"

Erm, even amongst those of us who are... shall we say dubious given the inability of the amazingly cash, and though I don't like to admit it, skill rich companies like Apple to make their cloud offerings secure there was a general consensus of "depends what you're using it for."

Until the Fappening happened most would have thought there was no chance of anything like that happening to Apple, I personally think that's the only breach of iCloud's security that hit the news. I doubt a single of the "big players" haven't had their fare share of cracks never become knowledge of more than those who had to try and fix it. Doesn't stop me using cloud storage though, I just don't put anything I wouldn't want my mother seeing on one

Usually clueless managerist clerks, just signed some dont-know-what-contract for some dont-know-what-service.

(Most) managers just know that it's a "new" buzzword that'll make their boss happy to hear. They don't care that for some tasks it's a step backwards and for others it's old (or ancient) ideas finally coming of age, and worse of all even if they do they don't care which one their pet toy falls into as long as it can be marketed.

[Artlav]

Not when i'm forced to use it for no good reason.

[SL4P]

You CAN'T have an opinion on "The Cloud" because there isn't just one.  There are literally thousands of cloud providers and they ALL have different terms of service.

The thread was not started to bash cloud security, but the very fact we are being asked to pay extra for what is fundamentally 40-year old 'technology' with lipstick applied.

What happens to the data or who owns it is almost irrelevant if security is well managed by the data-owner, but paying a premium to use something that in reality adds very little to a well organised data/comms/storage user seems to be 'big business at work.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Rigby]

You CAN'T have an opinion on "The Cloud" because there isn't just one.  There are literally thousands of cloud providers and they ALL have different terms of service.

The thread was not started to bash cloud security, but the very fact we are being asked to pay extra for what is fundamentally 40-year old 'technology' with lipstick applied.

What happens to the data or who owns it is almost irrelevant if security is well managed by the data-owner, but paying a premium to use something that in reality adds very little to a well organised data/comms/storage user seems to be 'big business at work.  Nothing more, nothing less.

computing in general is decades old technology with lipstick applied.

it costs money to power servers and buy disks.  not sure why you think it should be free.

im not a storage, networking, or security expert.  i know enough to know when i see something bad, same as when i go to a restaurant.  i cant cook, but i know bad food when i taste it.  i like to eat out once in a while, and i like to know that photos and videos of my kids are backed up in multiple geographies.  sorry.

[SL4P]

You CAN'T have an opinion on "The Cloud" because there isn't just one.  There are literally thousands of cloud providers and they ALL have different terms of service.
OP> Very true - and that's the rub.

The thread was not started to bash cloud security, but the very fact we are being asked to pay extra for what is fundamentally 40-year old 'technology' with lipstick applied.

What happens to the data or who owns it is almost irrelevant if security is well managed by the data-owner, but paying a premium to use something that in reality adds very little to a well organised data/comms/storage user seems to be 'big business at work.  Nothing more, nothing less.

...
im not a storage, networking, or security expert.  i know enough to know when i see something bad, same as when i go to a restaurant.  i cant cook, but i know bad food when i taste it.  i like to eat out once in a while, and i like to know that photos and videos of my kids are backed up in multiple geographies.  sorry.

Nice analogy with food.  But food's rarely free either - like hosted services or storage.
You have to find it, catch it, kill it, buy it or steal it... before you process it.

I just don't like paying extra for the parts you can legitimately do locally - more efficiently (you have an oven, stove, gas, electricity water and refrigerator...

To me it seems like a sales & marketing solution to a problem that doesn't exist in most small business or residential environments.  Laziness is present in all businesses, so that should be discounted.

As this months bonus offer - you also have to pay the shipping cost to / from the datacentre (ISP/telco charges) - for every byte - even if you don't use that document.

A university, multi-national restaurant or hotel chain - yes a private datacentre / or hosted services could well be a viable solution with the right SLA and data costs.