Stallman warns against cloud computing

I totally second this. That's exactly what I've been thinking for the last 10 years or so, everytime someone mentions "net computers", "web office applications", "web hard disks", "no DVDs, video on demand only", and now this cloud computing c**p.

Unlike the writer, I imagine the risk applies equally to 'simple backup of your data'. But the main thing is to be aware of the risks before you make your decisions, and plan accordingly.

'The corporations are evil... man...'

Actually, I think cloud computing is a good idea. Most people are really rather technically inept, and the idea of 'making a backup' sends them into fits of fear. Cloud computing puts that responsibility firmly into the hands of the people that are good at doing that.

Read the EULA, if you don't like it, don't sign up. 

And as for 'it's just as bad as using a proprietary program' - that's just rubbish. Perhaps we'd all like to start making our own sinks, because we couldn't possibly use a proprietary sink to wash our hands. We'd probably need to create a 'freedom respecting' hammer first, though.

Now if we could have a few standards that the companies could implement so I could pull/push my data to whichever cloud9 was offering the best rate.
Fat chance though - cant even get some simple XML so I can update my accounts package with data from .. well anywhere really.
Microsoft - can you explain why no-one can write simple programs anymore - they just write documents about them?

Does anyone really read EULA's ???

I have been using the internet since 1995, so that is over a decade. Now in this time I've noticed things like, oh, having over 50 accounts all over the place. Do you remember your passwords for all of them... Do you keep a password file... hope your system doesn't get pwned and that password file is copied...

Web apps are clunky slow and generally more prone to security flaws and bugs then any locally residing application that is compiled into a binary. There are too many dependencies on other technologies to even come close to being stable. Also web technologies are a heaven for data collectors who regularly hack these systems to get "statistics", never mind the company that you are getting the "service" from sells this info willingly.

When 1TB drives cost $150.00 (CND) I don't see why needing online storage is required. Unfortunately people inherently think that data is safe by these people. Look there is no technology that I know of that is safe, if someone you know has info on you and is storing this online and that data gets compromised and bad things happen to you will you not complain. 

It is simple and inexperienced in saying that the average joe sixpack is stupid and needs stupid simple but if joe sixpack has your expert info in his data your not safe.

There are many ways to compromise things sometimes they are not direct lines of sight.

I don't think that personal information should ever be held outside personal hardware.

Cloud computing is a horrible risk. First off, your private information is on a public server. This public server can and will be hacked by someone, which will make you vulnerable. Then you can bet that some government agency will have access to all the data to spy on the people in order to "fight the war on terror." 

Then just imagine if these servers were based off of microsoft products... Not even microsoft is stupid enough to use its own products. They program windows on Macs and run their main servers off of Unix and/or Linux. You would end up with random crashes and you will be unable to access your data. Then if you don't have internet access, you can't access your data. 

Cloud computing is only a good idea if you are a large company that doesn't want to take the blame when personal information is hacked. As for personal use... It is just a plain stupid idea. Don't fall for the ploy - it is just too risky.

Larry from Oracle said the emporer has no cloth first - with much more flairs.

This just show the opensausers, e.g. Stallman & co are just bunch of copycats. Even on this sort of things.

Sure, you are too stupid to comprehend the whole point of free software or the concept of freedom, so go about your daily business in a fog of ignorance.

Once you buy a sink or hammer you are free to do with them as you please - you don't need the mfgs permission how to use them.

Get a friggin clue or shut your stupid pie-hole.

HB

I haven't performed an extensive investigation into the matter, but AS FAR AS I KNOW, my sink has no "TM", "R", "C" and "Warning: Infringement carries penalty of death" stickers on it.

Also, wikipedia has documented the operational procedures and parameters for Domestic Water Systems. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_water_system Quite an interesting read (it's a lot more fun than EULAs, for sure).

As for the weed thing, I bet he'd prefer some cocaine, but you already did it all.

This is not new, hell it’s basically “time sharing”. Let the “experts” run your datacenter. This is a cyclical industry, 15 years ago it was all about decentralization, and client server computing was the buzz word of the day. Take those apps off of the expensive mainframe and proprietary boxes (you know, those apps that were running on virtual machines, and those physical machines that were getting around 85% utilization) and put them on much cheaper industry standard servers running a non- proprietary OS (aka Windows). So here we are today, virtualizing those Intel boxes and now looking at centralizing the whole thing. The biggest problem I see, is that if you ask ten different people what cloud computing is, you’re libel to get 10 different answers. And although I think Mr. Stallman is a bit out there, he makes a valid argument here.

Who actually reads the Microsoft EULA before they click "OK"? Reading EULA's is a joke, and rarely does anyone actually read what they are accepting. This is why I now use FOSS. I just can't trust the greedy souls out there, trying to come up with new ways of wrangling money from my wallet.

Stallman is right! Just say "No".

I disagree with the author for the most part.

While it is true that you are giving up most control, this may not necessarily be a bad thing.

But there are two things one needs to be aware of:
1) privacy - if it is very sensitive information, don't put it on the cloud. Keep it on your well-guarded, mission critical server. Else just make sure the EULA/SLA is acceptable; the chances of being compromised are probably lower than keeping it on your home PC.

2) Don't tie yourself to a single provider - It doesn't matter who you choose, Google, Amazon, IBM or Microsoft. If you configure youself in such a way that you cannot easily switch, you are in trouble. The doomsday scenario depicted in the article may well happen to you.
But if you are flexible enough to switch providers, or even better use more than one provider at any given time, the cloud providers cannot dictate the weather.
One raises the prices or does unethical things? Say him goodbye and use the others.
Unless there is serious collusion between all of them, you are the ultimate winner.

My 2c,
Igor

I agree, having all your data in some unknown system in an unknown location in the hands of unknown admins is plain stupid, and then paying for this service... drop your trousers and touch your toes 'cos your in for a shafting.
On the other hand powerful hardware is cheap and running web based apps (or any other apps) on your own central system is no big deal. It's been working for me for years and is getting simpler and more powerful all the time.

You don't have to be a Stallman acolyte to agree with him on this one.

"Read the EULA, if you don't like it, don't sign up. "

Who reads a EULA? You need a masters level intellect to understand one.

And there is a key component of the cloud computing trap.

Matt,
Yes, Stallman is right. Memorize these two words: "Fiduciary Responsibility".

Now imagine you meet a human being who's every action is aimed at grabbing more money; someone who cares nothing for the morality of their actions, only the legality; someone who feels no ties to their community, or country, or anyone.

Well, "Fiduciary Responsibility" is the *only* standard to which corporations are held. So of course they're evil -- not inherently, but by the rules as written. And they will continue to be until we hold them to a higher standard, just like we do humans.

One example: When HIV was discovered, all the pharmaceuticals began screening known drugs for anti-HIV activity. Glaxo-Welcome found one, called AZT. The patent on AZT had expired: it was a generic drug. So Glaxo filed a Use Patent for using AZT to treat AIDS. They then proceeded to set the price of AZT at about $11,000 per person per year -- because these people were dying and could be forced to pay anything at all for a drug that realistically should be $4/mo.

Cloud Computing concepts seem little more than a potential cash-cow guaranteed revenue stream offering all the inherent security risks that on-line data storage systems afford with the added bonus of customer profiling for selling on to adverstising marketers. No doubt Cloud and Phorm will get into bed with each other.

The tech savvy probably won't touch it but the masses might love it. God help them. I won't touch it as a user that's for damn sure.

The question is: Should I invest in Cloud as a good money earner and if so who will make me the most money in the next five years?

"Read the EULA, if you don't like it, don't sign up."

cf.

"Most people are really rather technically inept,"

Most people are rather inept at reading the EULA 
... 
I think cloud computing is a fancy,schmancy cuckoo marketing name for: 

'your data and info stored on the net by some other company for your convenient access from any internet terminal'

If people would just call it that, instead of "cloud computing", then the great inept public would have a better chance at understanding what it's about and making a decision to use or avoid it.

Personally I think cloud computing is great as long as:
* I can keep a local backup of my info/data
* it's nothing that requires confidentiality
* Governments can hold corporations legally responsible for providing minimum levels of service and privacy.



i say lets see how it pans out and not get paranoid as one or two posters seem to be O_o

as far as im concerned its a great idea in principle, if ya follow a few simple rules that are common sense, what could go wrong (famous last words lol)

assuming its not a silly price and........

1) dont put all your eggs in one basket (use several providers)

2) back up data locally, *cough, as you all do now ?? O_o

3) dont upload/work on any, *cough, sensitive data/video content :O)

presumably when doing complex number crunching or say video rendering, ya could start the task, shut ya rig down and piss of to the pub or whatever, by the time youd had a few swallies, bingo, job done, no concern about crashing, corruption, power cuts etc etc, sounds furkin good to me, i say lets 'suck it and see' :O)

That is the key notion by which I have decided to pass up this technological "opportunity".
The least of my worries is hackers. Personally I doubt that hackers are going to have more of an influence on this new arena than they already do on mail and dodgy attachments.
But given the track record on government nosiness, I fully expect every single one of the "cloud computing" hosting companies to have a permanent CIA/FBI office with 24/7 rotating teams that do nothing else but peruse the data that is supposed to be secure.
Let's face it, the American Government has currently shed all notion of privacy and blatantly ignores all laws that uphold personal freedom if it suits it.
In such an environment, I would be stupid to sign up to a service that is particularly vulnerable to this attitude.
If the US government is capable of twisting all known laws for simple phone calls, do you really believe they'll think twice about accessing actual data ?
I don't have a doubt they will.
I already have a terabyte of storage locally, and I know how to make backups, so I'll be damned if any government spook gets to leer at my data without a proper warrant to do so.

Cloud computing sounds like the stupidest thing someone could imagine. Processing over a network? sure- fine. Processing over the internet is just a HORRIBLE idea. What if your network card doesn't want to work right? What if your system is getting DDOS'ed?

What if a virus is affecting your network? Aren't you then virtually helpless?

Worst of all, What if the internet is slow that day? Wouldn't that also affect your processing ability?

There are too many "what ifs". I could likely come up with more with time but some of these are doozies and show stoppers.

It does indeed sound like the emperors new clothes and should be put down as an idiots idea.

the world needs more Right brain thinkers like Stallman and less drones like yourself who stifle creativity and blame hippies for everything.

we need more right brain thinkers and less people like yourself who blame hippies for everything.

Although I'd have to agree with most of the article, theres one part I differ on. Sure cloud computing takes the control out of the hands of the consumer, and in the hands of a company that doesn't care about the user it would be bad. However, I find that valve software's cloud computing plaftorm steam is quite the opposite. I think if more people were like valve, cloud computing would be good. I can attest that valve is not profit driven like you stated in the article because they sold there hit game, team fortress 2, on the steam store for $2.49 for 3 days (sure it may have been a super successful marketing attempt, and probably made them alot of money), but I think that the platform they set up really works. Mostly because I find it to be the only form of DRM that isn't TOO intrusive and restricting. I may be talking out of my ass here, however, over the years I've been impressed by the amount that valve has taken the user into consideration.