Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Stallman vs. Clouds (Linux Journal)
Over at Linux Journal, Doc Searls reflects on Richard Stallman's recent opinions of "cloud computing". "Still, I think that RMS is onto something. The core promise of computing, even on a vast network that connects us all, is autonomy and independence. It's being free (as in freedom) to operate on your own, and to share what's meant to be shared in ways that nobody else can control, and to improve useful goods in ways that work for everybody. There are, in those core values, imperatives that seem at odds with the dependencies that 'cloud computing' can sometimes involve."
(Log in to post comments)
Stallman vs. Clouds (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 7, 2008 0:43 UTC (Tue) by vomlehn (subscriber, #45588) [Link]
I think Mr. Stallman is on to something, but is missing a critical piece. The cloud computing folks want to make an analogy to turning on a light switch, and I think this is a useful way to think about things. I don't have my own generator. Neither do I have my own well, sewage treatment plant, garbage truck, etc. I *could* have all these, but it would be hugely expensive.
Cloud computing should likewise reduce the cost of having access to applications used only rarely, increase the reliability of backups, and give me the mobility to access data anywhere without requiring a personal Internet server. In fact, I believe that these advantages will be quite attractive to most people that have computers. As I result, I think that Mr. Stallman is raging against the tide. It didn't work well for King Canute; I expect no better results against improved economics.
Having said that, I agree that there are very significant issues with cloud computing, especially around privacy and restricted mobility of personal data. To some extent, these issues also appear in the cellphone arena. Just as we now have the ability to take our cellphone number with us, and it is illegal to monitor cellphone conversations, we can institute similar regulations. As citizens, we will have to make sure our rights aren't abused, but this is part of the price for living in a democracy. Of course, if you don't feel protected enough, you are still free to handle all your own data.
Stallman vs. Clouds (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 7, 2008 8:03 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> I think Mr. Stallman is on to something, but is missing a critical piece. The cloud computing folks want to make an analogy to turning on a light switch, and I think this is a useful way to think about things. I don't have my own generator. Neither do I have my own well, sewage treatment plant, garbage truck, etc. I *could* have all these, but it would be hugely expensive.
For much of my life we had our own well and septic system and such things. We should of had a generator, but whatever. We used a private deal with removing trash and occasionally burned the stuff that was safe to burn. We had our own propane tank to, that had to be filled every other year or so. That was for heating and cooking.
Compared to paying taxes to have a city take care of the details for you, it's actually very affordable. Plus you had a much greater freedom on some things.. like I could throw away a chair, were now we pay much more for trash now, but they won't pick up large objects.
Of course there were some downsides.. the septic system couldn't handle the volume of water associated with washing machines and such.. so laundry day involved a trip to town.
> Cloud computing should likewise reduce the cost of having access to applications used only rarely, increase the reliability of backups, and give me the mobility to access data anywhere without requiring a personal Internet server. In fact, I believe that these advantages will be quite attractive to most people that have computers. As I result, I think that Mr. Stallman is raging against the tide. It didn't work well for King Canute; I expect no better results against improved economics.
Weither or not Stallman is right will have little to nothing to do with how popular it gets. Just like how I think Mcdonalds is unhealthy and you shouldn't eat fast food has little to do with how popular McDonalds gets.
That being said... what your describing as advantages to cloud computing are already met for most people.
I own a laptop. Most people who are buying computers nowadays are buying laptops. This is because when they think having a computer is important they can just carry all their applications and their data around with them. So essentially for most people this is a solved problem, if it is a problem. Most everybody else is happy enough to get away from their computers...
And there are lots of problems with the solution cloud computing offers... When you go to a hotel does the hotel provide you a computer terminal? When you go to drink coffee or ride a train do they provide you with a computer? No. It's all strictly 'bring your own'.
How reliable is wireless interent access? How fast is it compared to landline? How much does 3G service cost? Unless you have a internet connection you simply do not have access to any of your data or any of your applications if they are stored in the 'cloud'.
So they say things like 'Access your data anywhere'.. Access it using what and how, exactly? Well more then likely it's going to be 'your computer'. And if you have your computer, do you really need the cloud?
I mean I can go out and get a 4GB flash drive for 5 bucks (or 9 bucks if you can't find one for sale). A 16GB is going to be around 20 bucks. If I carry my data around in my pocket it's always going to be there. I don't have to pay a monthly service for it, I don't have to suffer through advertisements either.
I won't trust a 'cloud' to hold my data if my data has any serious value to it. As in value in it being secret. I wouldn't mind using cloud for transfering files or sharing photos or something like that... but that's just trivial stuff. And I ABSOLUTELY will not trust any public terminal or cyber cafe with anything beyond the most trivial trivialities. Typing out usernames and passwords on a public computer is just asking for problems. I don't think that I am alone in this, even among non-technical people and we have no business suggesting people do otherwise.
> Just as we now have the ability to take our cellphone number with us, and it is illegal to monitor cellphone conversations, we can institute similar regulations. As citizens, we will have to make sure our rights aren't abused, but this is part of the price for living in a democracy. Of course, if you don't feel protected enough, you are still free to handle all your own data.
I have very very little trust in government paper to protect me from criminal activities. Just look at the recent bailout. There is all sorts of shady illegal horseshit those companies did to avoid regulations and limitations that were designed to stop another stock market crash.. rules that have been in place for 50 years or more. They just made up new terms, and made up new ways to account for money.. all of this was specifically designed to work around these limitations. Despite what they'll admit in front of congress the CEOs and other groups they DID break the law.. And did it on purpose and put lots of thought into it. They all may have destroyed their corporations and hurt the economy, but every single one of those jerks are going to retire with tens, and even hundreds, of millions of dollars in their pockets. Rape and pillage. And they will probably get away with it because if you look at the stock portfolios of most of the politicians involved.. they have serious money invest in those companies and related companies. If congress didn't do the bailout then they would be out considerable amounts of money themselves. Out of your pockets and into their's.
In a contest between a multinational corporation worth hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, versus _you_. Who do you suppose is going to get screwed over?
Unless there is proof that I can trust a company, I won't. It's their burden.
And, believe me, there is SERIOUS evidence to the contrary that no company, big or small, is even competent enough to protect all of it's users. That's even before the question of the honesty or the accountability of the company itself or all the employees that have any contact with any of your data or any of the systems managing your data.
See also:
The evidence is mounting, not diminishing.
You are minority - deal with it Posted Oct 7, 2008 12:25 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That being said... what your describing as advantages to cloud computing are already met for most people.Never suspected "less then 20% of potential users" is "most people" in English. Perhaps I've used wrong textbooks? I own a laptop. Most people who are buying computers nowadays are buying laptops.Roughly half of them do and for every computer owner owner there are two owners of mobile phones. So less then 20% of users who need to keep photos somewhere can use laptop for that. Most everybody else is happy enough to get away from their computers...But if you don't own a computer (and most people don't) then where the hell will you keep your SMTP-server? How reliable is wireless interent access?It depends, usually the asnwer is "not very reliable", but if you consider the answer to the next question How fast is it compared to landline?Oh, it's superfast: even 1 BPS is infinitely faster then 0 BPS. If we are talking about places without landline (and that's most of the Earth surface). And, believe me, there is SERIOUS evidence to the contrary that no company, big or small, is even competent enough to protect all of it's users.Yup, but that's irrelevant. When google is losing data of hundred or thousand of users - it makes the news. When millions of users lose their data without help of Google - that's "business as usual". Fact is: 99% of users are much, much worse then Google as far as backups are concerned. If you have time and energy to do all these backups, keep them up-to-date and so on - then you are not potential client of cloud compiting, but then - you are atypical person too.
You are minority - deal with it Posted Oct 7, 2008 13:47 UTC (Tue) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link] Never suspected "less then 20% of potential users" is "most people" in English. Perhaps I've used wrong textbooks?Obviously you have, since you can't tell "than" and "then" apart.
Way off topic, but hey... Posted Oct 7, 2008 20:10 UTC (Tue) by utoddl (subscriber, #1232) [Link] I confess I spent most of my time skimming over that post wondering about how to catch this most annoying and common typo/thinko. Maybe the article preview should turn any "than" or "then" into a couple of radio selects and the user would have to pick which he meant. That penalizes everybody though. Still, might be worth it. Or maybe they should all be changed to "th[ae]n" and put the burden on the reader. Oh, wait, it already is. Someday somebody's going to figure out how to turn the "than/then" problem into money, and I'm going to kick myself.
Even further off-topic, but possibly a lucrative money maker Posted Oct 7, 2008 23:59 UTC (Tue) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Someday somebody's going to figure out how to turn the "than/then" problem into money
The nice thing about programming languages is that their formal grammar is so incredibly strict (and compilers are terribly unforgiving). One of my favorite examples is the different interpretation of the two cout statements in the below C++ program: #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main() { cout << 3 << 5 << endl; cout << (3 << 5) << endl; } The parentheses changes the whole meaning of the statement, just as the inclusion (or omission) of the apostrophe in it's changes its meaning substantially. Obviously we human readers are much more forgiving than programming language compilers. :-)
Nice things Posted Oct 8, 2008 6:24 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] The nice thing about human languages is that they can be nicely understood under such incredibly adverse conditions -- like here on LWN.net. Non-native speakers, complete absence of non-verbal cues, lots of grammatical and syntax errors -- and still we get the message across, sometimes.While the silly computer cannot even interpolate a stupid couple of parentheses when that is so obviously what you mean. And sometimes it is not even about the endpoints -- you cannot understand because the language doesn't give your enough context.
My original post is missing a ')' Posted Oct 8, 2008 14:00 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] While the silly computer cannot even interpolate a stupid couple of parentheses when that is so obviously what you mean. Speaking of parentheses, did anyone else notice the missing close parenthesis needed on the "alot" inner bullet of my original post? I promise that was accidental; even I didn't notice it missing until long after I posted it. A programming language compiler would be screaming "MASSIVE FAIL" for such an omission.
Even further off-topic, but possibly a lucrative money maker Posted Oct 8, 2008 7:23 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Some of these things I too would consider errors. But
singular-number 'data'? What you're complaining about there is that the word has lately been absorbed into the language and now follows the standard rules of regular English nouns, pluralized with -s. Just because some Latin-heads would rather English worked differently and treated 'data' as if it were still living in Latin doesn't change the fact that this is what native speakers *do* to words that don't follow the rules. It might take a few centuries but words eventually get regularized. Even ancient irregulars like 'wrought' eventually fall (and new irregulars rise, of course, the number will never fall to zero).
Even Fowler's documents that particularly 'in computing and allied
Even further off-topic, but possibly a lucrative money maker Posted Oct 8, 2008 8:40 UTC (Wed) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
Whoa, I was rolling my eyes at that whinge for a different reason -- in my dialect, 'data' has become a mass plural, not a singular, so I say "this data", "lots of data" (compare, say, "sand" or "corn"). I would say "datums" in certain circumstances (compare "grains of sand"), but I can't say "datas" at all. You know people who pluralize it with -s?
Even further off-topic, but possibly a lucrative money maker Posted Oct 8, 2008 20:19 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Amazingly, yes. It still sounds wrong to me, but no longer very wrong.
It's a mass noun to me, but not to everyone.
Even further off-topic, but possibly a lucrative money maker Posted Oct 8, 2008 22:39 UTC (Wed) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
How odd. The standard in academia, on the other hand, remains "data" as a count plural, with people saying "these data" etc., which I am slowly getting used to myself. So all three possibilities are attested in the wild.
I don't know what this has to do with cloud computing, but at least it's more interesting than the top part of the thread...
Even further off-topic, but possibly a lucrative money maker Posted Oct 10, 2008 4:47 UTC (Fri) by alfille (subscriber, #1631) [Link]
Actually, Steven Pinker's ¨Words and Meaning¨ points out that irregular verbs are few (<200) but account for 40% of the verbs used in common speach. Essentially, we preparse and cache them, so we don't need the rules.
Even further off-topic, but possibly a lucrative money maker Posted Oct 10, 2008 8:12 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
That's exactly the problem -- high-frequency words can get away with irregularity, and the higher the frequency the more irregularity they can get away with (is/am/be/are/was/wtf?). But "data" isn't high frequency at all, so speakers are normalizing it to the usual English rules.
Even further off-topic, but possibly a lucrative money maker Posted Oct 11, 2008 2:50 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The English title of this book is _Words and Rules_.
I can tell them apart but usually I don't bother... Posted Oct 8, 2008 7:37 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Obviously you have, since you can't tell "than" and "then" apart. Oh, I can tell them apart. I even can distinguish "shit" and "sheet" orally if I do big enough effort. But why bother? How often "than"/"then" change the meaning of phrase?
I can tell them apart but usually I don't bother... Posted Oct 9, 2008 12:02 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] How often "than"/"then" change the meaning of phrase? More often then you stop to think. ;-)
You are minority - deal with it Posted Oct 7, 2008 18:21 UTC (Tue) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]
> Roughly half of them do and for every computer owner owner there are two
owners of mobile phones. So less then 20% of users who need to keep photos somewhere can use laptop for that.
You can use memory cards (which also have flash chips inside them like
Memory cards are not the answer Posted Oct 8, 2008 7:33 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] They are SUPERunreliable. An the problem is not the wear-down of flash. The problem is size: they are small so it's easy to lose them. Flash cards are good for transfer of data, but not so good for backups. Thus flash cards are not the answer.
analogy with septic systems Posted Oct 7, 2008 18:12 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Yes, it's true that most of us don't have our own septic tanks. But imagine if, instead of having the water system as a public utility, there were companies that would provide you with plumbing for free, but that they would run chemical analysis of what went down your toilet, and use the info to send you ads. They'd also retain the right to sell information about what's in your urine and feces to third parties, but would make vague promises to protect the privacy of individuals. And, of course they'd cooperate with any government that comes along trying to catch drug users or dissidents.I'm sure that everyone would feel personally violated by such an invasion of privacy. But handing over you personal data to "the cloud"? Your financial information, your love letters? Shouldn't there be better protection for privacy than we have now? To be fair, RMS would be better off discussing what a proper system would look like, instead of just saying no. But he's right to raise concerns.
analogy with septic systems Posted Oct 8, 2008 7:09 UTC (Wed) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]
i imagine those of us with toddlers would get some very odd junk mail. :)
Uber-great analogy Posted Oct 8, 2008 7:46 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] But imagine if, instead of having the water system as a public utility, there were companies that would provide you with plumbing for free, but that they would run chemical analysis of what went down your toilet, and use the info to send you ads. Why this analogy is so great? It's easy: if you think about it Japan is half-way there. No, they are not sending an ads, they are sending fines if you dump something illegal (or just dump too much grease in water). But the idea has potential... Your financial information, your love letters? You financial information is already mostly "in the cloud" and was there for last 50 years or so. How may financial transactions you do without help of a bank? How many with help of a bank? If it's good enough for finances, why it's not good enough for your love letters?
Stallman vs. Clouds (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 7, 2008 15:35 UTC (Tue) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link]
> it is illegal to monitor cellphone conversations
That does not mean your cellphone conversations are not monitored.
Avoid lock-in Posted Oct 7, 2008 23:47 UTC (Tue) by nas (subscriber, #17) [Link] The key point, as I see it, is whether you are locked in. If you can easily switch (e.g. from GMail to a different email service) then I don't see a problem. You not only need to get your data out, it also has to be in a format that you can use with other programs or services. Mark Pilgrim's reasoning for switching from OSX seems relevant.
Avoid lock-in Posted Oct 8, 2008 3:28 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
> The key point, as I see it, is whether you are locked in.
Yes, exactly.
I do a lot of so-called "cloud" computing, but since I have my own hosting account, and wrote all the software that I use, I'm not locked in. I have had several occasions where the hosting company had a server go down, and that was an inconvenience to be sure, but I solved the problem by mirroring the account on another server. If someone starts dropping nuclear bombs I may be in trouble.
Avoid lock-in Posted Oct 8, 2008 23:18 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes, like failing servers will be our biggest trouble if someone starts dropping nuclear bombs... You do realize that DSL lines would probably go down, right?
Stallman vs. Clouds (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 8, 2008 12:06 UTC (Wed) by tbrownaw (guest, #45457) [Link]
The building I work in does have its own generator. The air conditioning won't run from it, but it keeps the lights (mostly) on and lets everyone keep working when the power goes out from a storm or something. You'd probably want your own failover systems in case the cloud evaporates, and once you have to maintain those anyway what happens to the benefits the cloud is supposed to give? At least with electricity you save on fuel costs.
Stallman vs. Clouds (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 9, 2008 17:26 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
> The cloud computing folks want to make an analogy to turning on a light
> switch, and I think this is a useful way to think about things.
I don't know if it's that easy. For me, computing services are much more structured than the basic infrastructure service eclectricity where there are no structural variations. There's a nice yardstick to show that: Is there a single measurement that names the amount of service that one gets? In electricity, it's kilowatt per hour, my bill has just that number and that's all. How do you measure the amount of a cloud computing service that you got?
Now, if you talk about specific computing infrastructure services that don't have substructures either (remote storage, CPU time, Internet connectivity, maybe DNS), then I agree with you. Please note that you can measure their usage with one value. Actually, in case of Internet connectivity, we are already there; and Amazon's S3 et.al. show that one can buy such basic services on the fly. I use several of such services and they make much sense.
But the cloud computing apologets usually talk about much more: About the supply of whole application areas in the "cloud" and not just about basic unstructured infrastructure components. Not about Amazon's S3, but about Google Docs. Compared to electricity, that's more like my oven, my washing machine, my stereo, well, the lights in my rooms with their retransformation of power [sorry, probably not the proper English terms]. Comparing highly-structured computing services with unstructured electricity delivery is a nice marketing ploy in the trade press, but it compares apples to oranges. Let's compare washing machines to Google Docs instead -- yes, some people go to wash salons since they don't have an own machine or visit their parents with their dirty stuff if they're young enough, but is this really so typical?
If you consider that level, you might see that some people don't want to get their electric devices from the utility company either, just as they don't want to get their computing applications from the computing utility provider.
[OT2] pieces and tides Posted Oct 19, 2008 13:40 UTC (Sun) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]
(on a second thought)
> is missing a critical piece
> I think that Mr. Stallman is raging against the tide.
See e.g. Cochen et Charpentier "Le campagne electorale de 1789 en Bourgogne", p. 15, to better understand the role of "common people" for some particular tides.
> improved economics
> it is illegal to monitor cellphone conversations
> the price for living in a democracy
Stallman vs. Clouds (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 7, 2008 13:54 UTC (Tue) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]
Sorry, but I couldn't help think of "Old Man Yells at Cloud"
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/image.php?image=scree...
Stallman vs. Clouds (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 8, 2008 13:22 UTC (Wed) by djthomp (guest, #14080) [Link]
I saw the title and immediately thought "Stallman vs. Windmills".
Stallman vs... Posted Oct 8, 2008 7:12 UTC (Wed) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]
What surprises me is that RMS tells he's atheist but actually fights those who would prefer God (and freedom to choose given to us) to be an obsolete fairy tale... what wouldn't surprise is if one day he moves to Russia -- where these very core values of being able to decide for one's self were always above the formal law.
Folks who moved from xSU to US reported that the latter is currently plagued by the very same syndrome as the former: "big brother" and no real freedom ('cause it's dangerous and uncontrollable when people can actually think and decide). Good luck, and hope things bode well at least for some of us all.
Stallman vs... Posted Oct 8, 2008 11:28 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Why the surprise? He's an atheist, and _consequently_ he considers religion to be a fairy tale. Pure logic. Agreeing or not with him is _your_ choice.
Regarding "big broder", it's the same where ever there's someone in power. That's why you should always keep an eye on the people at charge, and be ready to oppose them. Fortunately looks like, in some places, there are means to do this without actually resorting to a armed civil conflict.
Sorry for the off-topic.
Stallman vs... Posted Oct 8, 2008 16:47 UTC (Wed) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] You misread or misunderstood me. Those who fight real religion also fight real freedom; e.g. Muslim one is more "real" than plastic Protestantism -- it has way more to do with conscience. And in Russia, we still have Orthodoxy (and miracles as well).It's offtopic too, but only if one doesn't want to have a bit more integral look at scary stuff that happens around us and often with our own help. Probably next tart^H^H^Hime I'd better suggest Richard some footage shot on a mobile in Jerusalem on a Saturday before Easter, it's quite curious for a scientist (/me being M.Sc. in Chemistry)...
Can we not route around the problem Posted Oct 10, 2008 16:24 UTC (Fri) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
If I can run an open source application on "the cloud" that encrypts all the data on the fly in the browser would that solve the problem? Even if they wanted to the service providers couldn't read my data? Or is it simply impossible to ensure all the hops between you and the app are secure and trustworthy?
|
|||||||||||||
