Google empire

Ranguvar · 2009-07-09 19:46:18

Has anyone here looked at some of the 'features' in Chrome? Make no mistake: their business is information.
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srwar … s_iron.php
Quite a few of those are non-issues IMO, but I'd still rather be without the Client-ID, etc.

Google's been quite resilient to "evilness", but they aren't staffed with saints, and I would like to see some more innovative competition among web app providers.

And no, I am not too enthused with the whole "cloud" idea...

Dusty · 2009-07-09 20:17:08

toad wrote:

It appears dusty actually knows what (s)he is talking about

I prefer she.

Heck, none of us use M$ - we are free not to use Chrome OS.

The point is you can run the same apps from firefox without losing anything. You're all already doing this.

(or the cloud if you choose the google system)

Google is actually quite small in terms of cloud computing.... they have the biggest cloud, but Amazon allows anybody to access the cloud. Rackspace is also selling into the cloud. Do you use facebook? Twiter? Identica? Github? bitbucket? wikipedia? These are all non-google webapps, most of which are cloud based. You trust them, but when you see chrome OS suggesting those are the only apps you need, you get scared.

The only reason to be scared is that you might think "OMG XYZ app isn't available as a webapp, I'm doomed!" I'm just arguing that any web app can perform as well as a traditional app. Yes, including photoshop, the HTML 5 canvas should make it possible (not easy, but possible) to create a working photoshop clone on the web.

If you have issues about your data being available to some company or another, you really should ensure you don't have an internet connection. You shop on ebay, you bank online, you have a paypal account and NOW, when google chrome OS is announced, you finally realize people have a bunch of your personal data. I'm sorry, but that cat got out of the bag about 10 years ago.

Its not just online either. Do you have an American Express card? They know everything you purchased last year. Ever flown in a plane? The airline knows where you went. Suck it up.

Dusty

Cerebral · 2009-07-09 20:20:16

Dusty wrote:

I'm just arguing that any web app can perform as well as a traditional app.

Yes, but can it run Crysis?

&#32 Greg · 2009-07-09 21:27:20

Cerebral wrote:

Dusty wrote:
I'm just arguing that any web app can perform as well as a traditional app.
Yes, but can it run Crysis?

Yes, but can anything run Crysis?

dannytatom · 2009-07-09 21:52:13

Yes, including photoshop, the HTML 5 canvas should make it possible (not easy, but possible) to create a working photoshop clone on the web.

http://aviary.com/ is already close.

Trent · 2009-07-09 22:34:40

Dusty wrote:

Trent wrote:
This is precisely what bothers me most about the idea of "cloud computing" or whatever marketing phrase you want to use to describe it. I may trust Google with my email, but I wouldn't store all my data on their server (or anybody else's, for that matter). Not unencrypted, anyway.
The architecture does not demand you store it on their server

I was saying that there are a good many things I'm not willing to move onto the cloud. Storage is a good example. Any program that opens files is another example, because that means if I lose access to the cloud I can't open my files whether they're stored locally or not.

That aside, why do you trust Google with e-mail? I bet you frequently send documents over e-mail. What's different between that and storing a document on google docs? If you're that paranoid, you really ought to be encrypting all your e-mail (maybe you do), and/or not ever sending anything to a gmail address.

That's why I never send personal information via e-mail. It's not Gmail in particular that's insecure, it's the whole infrastructure. I don't send anything over e-mail that I wouldn't post where anybody can read it. I "trust" Google not to lose my email, but I don't trust them to keep it secret.

I'm not entirely opposed to moving things into the cloud; I think it has some great applications (especially for distributed systems and certain businesses). I'm wary of the trend towards moving everything into the cloud.

Coincidentally, I'm watching an article on the News Hour right now about cloud computing.

Last edited by Trent (2009-07-10 15:40:29)

Dusty · 2009-07-10 15:38:37

Trent wrote:

Dusty wrote:
<snip>
Corrected that for you... (Yes, I'm paranoid. What's your point?)
.

Can you edit that to not be quoting me as saying something I didn't ever say. I don't like people putting words in my mouth; people reviewing this thread could be confused as to what my stance actually is.

Dusty

Trent · 2009-07-10 15:41:16

Dusty wrote:

Can you edit that to not be quoting me as saying something I didn't ever say. I don't like people putting words in my mouth; people reviewing this thread could be confused as to what my stance actually is.

Sincere apologies. Fixed.

Inxsible · 2009-07-10 16:09:41

So is it a choice to run all the apps within Chrome (the browser) or is it forced upon you?

Does anyone know for sure? If the latter, I don't think I would do much with it apart from trying it out to see what the hype is all about. I have a few apps that I would like to run natively and not use Google's clouds.

Apparently, all data that goes through their clouds are owned by Google, and its the "ownership" that I am not comfortable with.

I could be wrong (I hope I am)

Last edited by Inxsible (2009-07-10 16:12:30)

Dusty · 2009-07-10 16:31:49

Inxsible wrote:

So is it a choice to run all the apps within Chrome (the browser) or is it forced upon you?
Does anyone know for sure? If the latter, I don't think I would do much with it apart from trying it out to see what the hype is all about. I have a few apps that I would like to run natively and not use Google's clouds.
Apparently, all data that goes through their clouds are owned by Google, and its the "ownership" that I am not comfortable with.
I could be wrong (I hope I am)

I don't think anyone knows anything for sure, but I'm guessing traditional gui apps won't run under the ChromeOS window manager because its not traditional X.

However, it will still be a web browser. You can run cloud apps like Oprius or git hub in it. You could theoretically use ChromeOS and never talk to a google server.

To get a grip on things and forget about the FUD, take a couple steps and imagine a world like this:

* Google doesn''t write chrome os; its an open standard that caught on in a grassroots fashion
* ChromeOS is basically just a computer that boots into a browser and allows no other local applications
* Every program is a web app that may be hosted on a server you control, may be hosted in the cloud, may be hosted by an open source project, may be hosted by a corporation
* Every program you ever wanted, needed, or imagined is available as a webapp

I think that's basically what the ChromeOS guys are aiming for. Forget about who's in control, just look at the technology. I mean if google really is evil, just write an open source alternative that does all of the above without talking to the google cloud.

Dusty

ralvez · 2009-07-11 17:16:52

@Dusty,

I think that you have a good pint in your last post.
If the idea is to have a browser based OS that is independent of a "vendor/provider" and can be tailored to "talk" to your own stirage servers and cloud applications it may stick.
Then again VPN and Linux give you just a much power methinks ... except, "cloud" has more cool factor to it.

R.

moljac024 · 2009-07-11 17:37:03

People, please think really hard before supporting this "cloud" crap.

olovram · 2009-07-11 18:16:37

Actually, I think the windowing system is gonna be
inside the browser, so webapp can behave and be treated like
normal ones.

ralvez · 2009-07-11 18:45:20

moljac024 wrote:

People, please think really hard before supporting this "cloud" crap.

For those of us that have been around for awhile the "cloud" is a renewed and hyped "main frame" concept and suffers from the same draw backs as the old paradigm did; namely: to have access to the application you need access to the main frame (Internet in cloud's case). It also shares the same appeal though: it takes a very simple device (terminal) to access the tools you need to work.

So, the way I look at it the cloud concept has its value when it comes to very portable, reduced power consumption devices but is not necessarily for the desktop; at least I do not see it.

Sure, any of the small devices nowadays is far more powerful than any terminal in the old days but we have yet the same bottle-neck: power users would not be happy with a web based device; I know I would not

So... I would not worry much about the cloud paradigm, time has a way to re-teach us old lessons and tech-people tend to learn fast even when the mighty power of Google/Microsoft are behind the cutting edge technology.

R.

Dusty · 2009-07-11 21:35:44

ralvez wrote:

moljac024 wrote:
People, please think really hard before supporting this "cloud" crap.
For those of us that have been around for awhile the "cloud" is a renewed and hyped "main frame" concept and suffers from the same draw backs as the old paradigm did; namely: to have access to the application you need access to the main frame (Internet in cloud's case). It also shares the same appeal though: it takes a very simple device (terminal) to access the tools you need to work.

That's what I used to argue, and the argument is still partly true. But there are a few vital differences:

redundancy: When a mainframe went down, the whole company went down. Clouds can't go down, they're designed to seamlessly reroute to another node in the cloud that will handle the request.

offline: When your connection to the mainframe goes down, your computer goes down and all is lost until its back up. With new style cloud computing, the thin client has offline-enabled capabilities that allow it to function, possibly fully, possibly in a crippled state.

cost: mainframes cost tens or hundreds of thousands. Putting your app in the cloud can be free (GAE) to cheap (EC2, Mosso). Building a cloud is a different story though, admittedly.

Basically, thinking of cloud computing as a regression to mainframe days isn't the right attitude, its more like trying to improve on the now-obvious flaws of the mainframe days. I expect in a few years we'll be reverting to a leaf-node style of architecture as we realize that cloud computing kind of sucks and we have 20/20 hindsight to tell us what is wrong with the current system.

Dusty

Inxsible · 2009-07-11 22:39:35

Cloud computing is all the rage everywhere. The company I work for, did a extensive research on whether to build a cloud vs using a cloud from an external provider like Amazon or Google.

Amazon S3 people even came over to give a presentation on it. Our company still hasn't gone either way yet because

1) as already mentioned by Dusty building and more importantly maintaining a cloud is prohibitively expensive.
2) company execs by nature are paranoid about having company secrets/proprietary data on somebody else's servers. (S3 did say that our data will be ours and only in our control unless a request came from us to go in to our account and do maintenance-- but that's a different story)

point being - ppl are paranoid about storing data on servers not directly under their control.

I am not 100% positive on it because I haven't read the terms and conditions fully, but I do remember seeing somewhere that Google owns any data passing through their servers and if so, companies would most likely not use Google's clouds. However, common public (almost 80 -90 % of them at least) could care less and Chrome OS could be a good fit for them.

These questions are something to consider : (most people will be worried about these rather than whether their netbook runs Chrome OS or some watered down Windows

1) Will the apps that I want to use work when I want them to?
2) If I want to use a proprietary app (Microsoft Office for eg.), do I pay for every use or do i have to pay the one time fee to buy the software although its never installed on my machine but on Google's cloud.
3) Right now people pay for Office -- and most of those users hardly use Access, Outlook or the other softwares bundled. Most people use Word and Excel and occasionally PowerPoint. Will you have to pay for all or can you pay for only what you want/will use.

It will be interesting to see what payment schemes Google comes up with for softwares people aren't ready to give up/use a different one yet.

ralvez · 2009-07-11 22:54:33

Dusty wrote:

I expect in a few years we'll be reverting to a leaf-node style of architecture as we realize that cloud computing kind of sucks and we have 20/20 hindsight to tell us what is wrong with the current system.

I do not think of cloud computing as a regression to main frame days, I was just stating the obvious. I'm also not sure that "cloud computing sucks", I think, as with all new technologies, it has its place but we need time to determine what that "place" is.

In my mind, with the current understanding of this technology, I'm impressed to believe that it has value for highly mobile people. I see a practical application at schools for example, where a hybrid e-book and application enabled device (read: word processing, spread sheet, calculator, etc.) could be a fantastic and affordable way to bring the necessary educational material to students in a single portable device.

I'm a bit of an "old fog" but I'm also an engineer and a software developer and therefore open minded by nature to new technologies... having said that, I'm also very protective of my data and I know that corporate people are even more so, therefore, I strongly doubt that cloud computing will stick with them as long as they do not have tight control of the bits and bites of their corporate data, particularly to where they reside. I believe we both would agree that if cloud computing does not stick at the corporate level it will have limited success.

In conclusion, my view is that we need to stay open minded and observant as to what value a new technology brings by itself, instead of accepting what the Goggles and Microsofts of the world would like us to believe is their true value, and use those technologies where they fit best ... if they fit at all.

R.

Last edited by ralvez (2009-07-11 22:58:37)

Trisonic · 2009-07-12 07:17:14

What Google needs to do now is to provide a server program (at cost, whatever) to setup a private cloud (Google Storm, perhaps?) on your own server so you can have the best of both worlds: a local network OS that you can access from anywhere on your own private/passworded network, but at the same time you are in total control of your network cloud without overhead from the main Google servers.

Anyone with reasonable knowledge of file servers can set up something like this themselves, but for most people/companies it's probably worth the money to buy a standalone program/server with support then to hire someone to set it up/maintain it yourself.
(apologies if this is a tad rambling/obvious, I've had a bit to drink tonight)

droog · 2009-07-12 07:28:35

This won't hurt me/us in any way, so i for one welcome our google overlords, I hope for better driver support.
There was, has and always will be ever larger and cheaper harddrives for our personal data and os.
even if this catches on for some, It won't affect any of us unless we choose it.

absolutely no need for the "cloud" and no way it will affect us in any way unless you want it.

B-Con · 2009-07-12 07:53:23

I'm still not sure of the advantage of what all this offers to me. What about this is better than the current situation, beyond the slight advantage in ease of accessing all our data from another computer?

Trisonic wrote:

What Google needs to do now is to provide a server program (at cost, whatever) to setup a private cloud (Google Storm, perhaps?) on your own server so you can have the best of both worlds: a local network OS that you can access from anywhere on your own private/passworded network, but at the same time you are in total control of your network cloud without overhead from the main Google servers.

Which would, more or less, make it like using SSHFS today, except instead of running apps written in C/++/Python/Perl/Java you'd be running everything in JavaScript.

iza · 2009-07-12 17:16:21

Trisonic wrote:

What Google needs to do now is to provide a server program (at cost, whatever) to setup a private cloud (Google Storm, perhaps?) on your own server so you can have the best of both worlds: a local network OS that you can access from anywhere on your own private/passworded network, but at the same time you are in total control of your network cloud without overhead from the main Google servers.
Anyone with reasonable knowledge of file servers can set up something like this themselves, but for most people/companies it's probably worth the money to buy a standalone program/server with support then to hire someone to set it up/maintain it yourself.
(apologies if this is a tad rambling/obvious, I've had a bit to drink tonight)

They probably will IMO. Have a look at Google Wave; one of their top priority features is making it easy to set up a private server.

kgas · 2009-07-12 18:40:05

It is known that computing world is moving towards cloud. As many said in future the pc will be a window to explore the cloud computing. Here is one more review about
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/weeki … helft.html

Last edited by kgas (2009-07-12 18:43:56)

Pank · 2009-08-14 19:31:12

I thought the Economist's cartoon from last week was quite good:

Arch Linux

#51 2009-07-09 19:46:18

Re: Google empire

#52 2009-07-09 20:17:08

Re: Google empire

#53 2009-07-09 20:20:16

Re: Google empire

#54 2009-07-09 21:27:20

Re: Google empire

#55 2009-07-09 21:52:13

Re: Google empire

#56 2009-07-09 22:34:40

Re: Google empire

#57 2009-07-10 15:38:37

Re: Google empire

#58 2009-07-10 15:41:16

Re: Google empire

#59 2009-07-10 16:09:41

Re: Google empire

#60 2009-07-10 16:31:49

Re: Google empire

#61 2009-07-11 17:16:52

Re: Google empire

#62 2009-07-11 17:37:03

Re: Google empire

#63 2009-07-11 18:16:37

Re: Google empire

#64 2009-07-11 18:45:20

Re: Google empire

#65 2009-07-11 21:35:44

Re: Google empire

#66 2009-07-11 22:39:35

Re: Google empire

#67 2009-07-11 22:54:33

Re: Google empire

#68 2009-07-12 07:17:14

Re: Google empire

#69 2009-07-12 07:28:35

Re: Google empire

#70 2009-07-12 07:53:23

Re: Google empire

#71 2009-07-12 17:16:21

Re: Google empire

#72 2009-07-12 18:40:05

Re: Google empire

#73 2009-08-14 19:31:12

Re: Google empire

Board footer