Why clouds should be more like operating systems

Back to the article

/dev/me

Yeah, that's what I always say... #

Posted Thursday 13th November 2008 11:43 GMT

Maybe we should go in business?

<= we'd be partying with the likes of her in to time :D

Anonymous Coward

Sign of the times #

Posted Thursday 13th November 2008 11:43 GMT

I remember when not a week went by that the Reg wouldn't ridicule Linux in some way, gosh now we are getting the package manager commands rammed at us.

The clouds are here already (have been for quite sometime), we call them http, ftp, rsync, ssh daemons etc, and they have been frolicking about for ages now.

The decentralised approach works best along with a mirror system, sure thin clients can work, but I am not giving up my desktops and servers just to have a tiny little uplink to the net and be dependent on a handful of suppliers, thank you very much.

More complication is the way, sure have some dreggy applications and systems for the numtpies, but let's get leaner, meaner and more complicated - that way we get another cycle of the Reg poking fun at Linux, and then a series of articles on why it is not all that complicated.

jake

::rolls eyes:: #

Posted Thursday 13th November 2008 11:43 GMT

Centralized computing doesn't even work in the large monolithic corporations that sell it. Look at IBM, for a really good example. If IBM can't make it work internally, despite a half century of trying, does anyone really think a paper-only company (eg. Google) can?

Stop pushing cloud computing, already. It's getting boring.

James

Clouds ... #

Posted Thursday 13th November 2008 11:43 GMT

.. are those fluffy white (or sometimes grey, even black) things in the sky aren't they?

They provide rain, hail and snow - all of which can be beneficial or detrimental to humans (and animals). They are not solid, they are ephemeral (unless you live in the UK - in which case, granted, they are fairly permanent).

So by calling this digital thing clouds what we are really saying is:

1) Like natural clouds there's a good chance it won't be there a lot of the time.

2) You could get a hell of a lot of damage caused by the cloud.

3) The only time the sun really shines and you can get work done is when the cloud is NOT there ("make hay while the sun shines").

4) There's some chance you'll be totalled in a lightning strike from the cloud.

5) You'll be depressed by the cloud (cloud is associated with depression - ("I feel like I've got this cloud hanging over me").

6) You'll be involved in a pile up (low cloud - otherwise know as fog) and lose all your data.

No points to whoever thought this name up!

I don't see what was wrong with calling it "Big Brothers Eye" or something honest like that.

BioTube

Forward to the Past! #

Posted Friday 14th November 2008 01:02 GMT

"Cloud computing" as a concept existed back in the late fifties/early sixties(as did the tech to go 10% the speed of light). Written in the worst programming language ever devised(seriously - who doesn't reserve keywords?), it failed in its goal of allowing an entire city to use a central computer via dumb terminals in every house(it did, however, work great on a small scale). It seems computing's another field that goes in cycles.

Mine's the one that matches my DeLorean.

Kanhef

@BioTube #

Posted Friday 14th November 2008 13:39 GMT

Which language was that? Intercal or BrainFuck?

Chika

You miss the point #

Posted Saturday 15th November 2008 20:30 GMT

Actually, the whole point of "cloud" computing is that we wrest the control of all but the surface application layer from those that currently have it, know not what to do with it and, as a result, screw it all up and leave the real control in the hands of...

...hey! Is Simon Travaglia reading this?

Forums

Forums home