Cloud Computing - Virtualization - Web 2.0

[MaleVolentworld]

Hi,

I've been doing some research on the I.T industry and the future is cloud computing, whereby you use software and hardware as a service, rather than a product that you own and have to maintain on site.

So, instead of buying an operating system, applications such as Microsoft Office, having to worry about data loss, back ups, viruses and trojans etc, you instead access all of this and use all of this as a service in the cloud, the cloud being the internet.

An example of this would be software as a service such as Google docs. It is office software that is stored on the internet and can be accessed from any pc. Zoho also offer this free service.

Then you have operating systems in the cloud such as Ghost (go to your browser and type g.ho.st in the address bar). You log in and are presented with a desktop like the one you log into your computer with. But instead of Microsoft Office, your office suit is also in the cloud, Google Docs and Zoho, and instead of having to install MSN, you also access this in the cloud at Meebo.

Another idea which I am not 100% at the moment is by MokaFive, whereby, according to them, you have desktop virtualization in the cloud. I tried this, and what you have to do is download 40MB or so of their software, and then choose an operating system such as Linux, and this is downloaded onto your desktop and is visible inside a window. It requires 1GB of memory and some data storage also, but I don't see how it is actually in the cloud, all of the computing power is provided by your desktop. You can also have it on a USB stick, but I don't see how it differs from just having an OS on a USB stick.

I think true virtualization in the cloud is by Citrix's Xen Desktop, that allows you to choose an operating system like XP or Linux stored in a data centre, and you log into and use it on your desktop.

I think VMWare are the leaders in virtualization, I'm not sure if they have this in the cloud or only outside of it. They have a server version, and you have to pay for that service.
Sun have VirtualBox, which is free, and it allows you to run an OS like Ubuntu, and at the same time run Vista inside a small window, but this is not virtualization in the cloud.

Does anyone use virtualization in the cloud at work? if so I'd like to know how it works, do you require a lot of bandwidth, is the service slow, is it cheap etc etc

[sombragris]

I don't think "the cloud" will take off. For me, it's just a fad and its weak side will be made apparent any time now. Trade the certainty of having all my data and applications on my own computer for having them stored in some server in the sky, just to have them disappear when I don't pay the (metered) bill or when they go offline because of some unexplained hitch?

Besides that, you would need good bandwidth with low latency, and good standards-compliant browsers for ANY platform. Right now, good bandwidth and low latency in many parts of the world are a joke and/or prohibitively expensive. And most "cloud" apps work with IE/Firefox/Opera/Safari and that's it... if you want to access it with a no-name browser from a nameless OS running from an exotic RISC CPU on an embedded device (read: a typical smart cell phone) you're out of luck.

Cloud computing is a convenience, but it's regression, not progression. Therefore, my take is that it won't succeed.

[schwartzie]

Interesting topic. We don't use it at work, but the idea and possibilities are so interesting. It is the future, as is mobility in general.

The alternatives without cloud computing are so frikkin clunky--remoting into yr machine sux. And most people can't begin to do it securely. And it also sucks to drag around a sufficiently large machine to do ordinary stuff securely. Most people don't -we get lightweight notebooks and tablets or smaller devices that are insecure AND STILL inadequate.

A different interesting aspect to this in the evolution of consumer uses is privacy. We sell our private data so cheap to google and its ilk. (me too- I have become a googlewhore...) We need a decent privacy model to limit the incredible abuse of privacy data--the gov't doesn't need to maintain dossiers anymore, they can buy them from the big data vendors, lol. Lawrence Lessig and other stanford type scholars are doing work in this area.
Re Sombragris' concerns about bandwidth-- at least in the US, the adequacy of bandwidth is an issue being pushed by many consumer groups. The US has such poor bandwidth because the big vendors have political muscle and unreasonably influence public decision making. Google took a bite out of them last year by getting the FCC to create and auction off new (formerly unavailable) wireless bandwidth, which will be coming onto the market with the legal constraint that the owner must allow open access-- devices like locked iphones can't be required. That will push usage, and force competitors to keep up by improving access and speed. Also, there is a fairly high probability that under Obama, there will be public resources going to develop infrastructure in areas ignored by commercial vendors because of reduced profitability--using the pool of money in the federal "universal service" fund to drive more development. So--cloud computing has a life, I think.

[HackerX]

I don't think "the cloud" will take off. For me, it's just a fad and its weak side will be made apparent any time now. Trade the certainty of having all my data and applications on my own computer for having them stored in some server in the sky, just to have them disappear when I don't pay the (metered) bill or when they go offline because of some unexplained hitch?


And I agree.

The whole thin client concept certainly isn't anything new, but ultimately users want control.

Oh, maybe some things will be shipped of, but the majority of the power will remain with the users.

[Pandemonium]

I only want to pay for something once rather than the amount of time I use the software.

This cloud computing sounds like the old xanadu project that never took off.

[AnotherNormal]

Some people will use it some won't. I think there will be a mix.

I don't think most businesses trust their files to the cloud.

[schwartzie]

just to be clear, "cloud" refers to a company that owns and runs the apps. Just another third party. Really no different than using a third party for storage. What's being sold is that it's cheaper to out-source yet another IT function.

[PRBori]

Interesting... well I'm working on the architectural details for a SharePoint Server and SQL Server 2008 64 bit running as VMs under VMware ESX Server.

Since it's kind of my project, the team and I decided VM was the way to go. It would make the servers easier to transfer from one site to another during the COOP Recovery Plan. This of course still in the works as we speak. It is a new concept for me, but I must said is a really interesting one.

The architectural network details is very simple... (specially documentation...hahaha...)

Hardware Server is loaded with the ESX VMware Server, then two virtual servers on different HD are created, one for running SharePoint 2007 Server/IIS, the other one running SQL with a based OS of Win2008 64bit server. Security is tighten in all areas> Firewall, ESX Level, VM OS Level, and Application Level ( of course that being my main domain).

So far I like it, let's see when its time to run FREE with the SharePoint Administration. Right now I'm all about ensuring they are configured per requirements in the testing environment prior to entering full development or production, and making sure they are fully documented from step one to pass auditing requirements. So documentation is broken down to OS and App levels (Meaning ESX/Win2008/SharePoint/SQL,etc.) lot's of writing while configuring... then I'll be entering the programming area and start building the internal sites...

Now, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "CLOUD". The reason for our decision was to build up a server where an application in Share Point can be developed and users will access the application via the Internet, not the server itself.

The server will only be access for maintenance, administration, and auditing purposes by assigned groups (i.e., Security Team, System Owners).

If the "CLOUD" is a third party organization offering HOSTING Services of companies DATA via the Internet, then I don't think it will take off... specially in the government/state areas. It may take on the private industry if they are not concerned with Security Issues of data being hosted outside of their domain or controlled areas.

[HackerX]

We do virtual servers here at my work. I have no idea about them though beyond the basic principle.

"Cloud" though is basically application hosting + data.

As schwartzie pointed out, it's all about cost cutting and nothing to do with functionality.

[foobar]

Big player companies such as Google, Microsoft and friends are putting their money in the cloud and I expect they have enough leverage to convince a few ignorant companies and governments to trust them. If data is stored remotely and behind locked doors, and the guarantee says everything that gets transmitted is encrypted in 42 different ways this will seem as an attractive resolution to the problem of laptops with sensitive data getting stolen (happening way too often lately).

I personally think this is a very bad idea that will hopefully never get off the ground -- of course, this could lead users to losing control of their data and will bring Big Brother a step closer to being true. Also, I'm sure Microsoft sees this as the "solution" to the "problem" of open source software: if Windows doesn't cut it on its own, play down its role and make people dependent on something new that only they can provide.

[ClydeB]

Cloud computing is nothing new. The idea by other names has come and gone a few times already. I personally am a fan of cloud computing as long as I own both ends. In fact, I do this. I have some servers at my house that are on 24x7 with a dedicated internet connection that I can terminal serve into from any other internet connected device.
But I am not about to pay someone else to keep my data and apps hosted somewhere outside of my control. There are some niche companies that do it and make money from it. I just do not see mainstream acceptance of this yet.

[raharu]

How do you feel about services like Steam and the recently unveiled OnLive? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I do understand that there is a slight, but important difference between them. However, the overall strategy is the same: host the media remotely and charge users (one-time or based on subscription) to access it. Often the services will charge for less than the cost of a hardcopy.

I find little fault with the concept of cloud computing in general. However, I feel that these services - when paid for - are ultimately unreliable. When it comes to software I'm something of a libertarian; If not the rights to the software, I want to at least own my copy of it to use independently of the retailer's wishes. More middlemen is never a good thing, especially one that can terminate your access to software you paid for without there ever being any trace that you ever could have used it.

I also find that instating such a service for providing software is totally an instrument to enable companies to charge subscription fees for static software, because the subscription method is so highly profitable. That's pretty distasteful, but I don't know how far that discussion will go.

What does INTJf think of this situation? I was about to expand the topic to subscription services in general, but perhaps that's a topic for another day.

[WaeV]

Onlive will be as laggy as hell. Lag is a problem when the game is rendered locally, now the user has to be receiving a compressed video stream as well?

[Monouk]

Just injecting my first little comment anywhere...

...what about Cloud by the gOS guys?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[schwartzie]

for home music players, a nice toy:

"multiple players simultaneously, for instance to one player in your kitchen and another in your living room."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[mnmeq]

wish it would go away. it's a less robust way to centralize control of the way an app is used with the side effect of less secure data.