May 1, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Intelligence Cloud
May 2, 2011 at 2:58 am
As I posted in a related topic to this one, regarding your questions or statements
However what is a private cloud here? Isn't it just an outsourced set of systems hosted elsewhere? It seems as though many companies and journalists are selling the cloud as some sort of new technology? Isn't it just a set of hosted servers that are just virtual machines? Or is it just a set of servers that are standardized somehow in their configuration and capabilities?
I'd say the answer is yes. All thou the cloud could offer some more functionality like load balancing.
But all in all, it's just a new way in how to package and sell virtual environments and cpu, ram and disk.
May 2, 2011 at 4:09 am
"Military Intelligence Cloud". Like mixing gasoline, water, & fire.
James Stover, McDBA
May 2, 2011 at 6:14 am
I think someone slipped up and let a marketing type look at a spec document for someone's network. They saw this cloud-shaped thing and decided it was marketable.
Here's the problem. Most of the world thinks of "The Web" and "The Internet" as the same thing. So when you start trying to market something decidedly non-webby you need a new term for it. "The Cloud" is just a bunch of internet services that most of us have been using for years. We could purchase hosting services on the other side of the world that would provide everything "The Cloud" is promising today. Or we could set up our own sites (or colocation) locally or remotely to give us that functionality.
Personally, I'm not trusting my corporate data to any server that I can't lay my hands on. There are federal laws and regulations (HIPAA, SARBOX, etc) that make me nervous about such things.
May 2, 2011 at 6:35 am
Hit the nail right on the head!
May 2, 2011 at 6:52 am
I recently decided to look into cloud service for a customer that looked to be a good fit. While there is a lot of talk ("This will be up and running soon!"), the reality I found was very slim. Outside the fortune 500 or 1000 groups, I saw nothing that offered any real benefit to a small business over local services. I did find one offering that looked good and the customer is happy with it. That falls way short of 'cloud everywehere' we are being bombarded with by Microsoft and other mainstream players.
Like many new technologies, the marketing departments are way out in front of the reality department.
May 2, 2011 at 7:11 am
I took a Systems Analysis class recently, and they were "explaining" the Cloud as anything you access that doesn't run on your computer. I made a nuisance of myself by loudly complaining how incredibly wrong that was. They referenced those stupid "to the Cloud!" commercials as 'proof'
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
May 2, 2011 at 7:17 am
"The Cloud" = "Outsourcing"
Maybe not all components, maybe not personell but really how about a remote data center or data center rental space...
"The Cloud" is nothing new but is a marketing piece to advance its use to the next level. I love when decisions are made by marketing not by true cost benefit and functionality assesment.
May 2, 2011 at 7:53 am
kent.kester (5/2/2011)
I think someone slipped up and let a marketing type look at a spec document for someone's network. They saw this cloud-shaped thing and decided it was marketable.Personally, I'm not trusting my corporate data to any server that I can't lay my hands on. There are federal laws and regulations (HIPAA, SARBOX, etc) that make me nervous about such things.
Amen!
I am a firm believer that a true cloud environment is a bad, bad idea. First, we no longer have control over the security of the data. Second, we no longer have control over the performance of the data store. Third, we no longer have what is almost a guaranteed connection to the data (our network almost never has issues, think Amazon before you - not referring to Kent here - debate this point!) Fourth, companies close, so we no longer can guarantee the longevity of our data, nor our ownership of it.
In my experience, companies who lose a customer do not really care how difficult it is for that customer to extract their data to load into the replacement system. This is far worse, because we aren't in a situation where we can just power the server on when we need it, we actually have to keep paying huge fees just in case we need to access historical data.
Now there are exceptions of course. I personally don't think it is a good idea now, and I have doubts as to whether it ever will be.
Dave
May 2, 2011 at 8:07 am
Steve, you finally pulled back the curtain to show that the great and powerful "Cloud" is really a marketing humbug (at least the way they are pitching it).
Some companies may benefit from the cloud but they better be keeping a close eye on their investment to make sure it is delivering the value they expect.
...and one other thing: who takes the blame when someone walks off with your precious data or the cloud vanishes because the vender comes under attack? You do!
May 2, 2011 at 8:22 am
j_e_o (5/2/2011)
Steve, you finally pulled back the curtain to show that the great and powerful "Cloud" is really a marketing humbug (at least the way they are pitching it)....and one other thing: who takes the blame when someone walks off with your precious data or the cloud vanishes because the vender comes under attack? You do!
In anticipation of the probably debate that some data isn't that important...
If you can live without the data, and it isn't "precious" or important, then why are you saving it? Why would you want to pay someone else to save it?
Thanks, j_e_o for prompting me on this, I had a tought time coming up with an example in my post. Although I am sure there is some reason to use the cloud, I just can't come up with a good one.
Dave
May 2, 2011 at 9:11 am
Being one of those people who included the 'cloud' in my drawings, I've always been suspicious of the 'real' cloud. I've always used the cloud as shorthand for something between 'magic' and 'here be dragons'. That is, the cloud represents a breakdown in control or knowledge. I've always felt it my role to make the clouds smaller and smaller until everything was understood and under control.
That said, I can see value in pushing the data and even the applications to auto-scaling, available-from-anywhere systems. I can see value in packaging everything it takes to do so in a way that abstracts away the gritty details. I can see value in letting people smarter and more skilled than I am configure the hardware, software, delivery mechanisms, recovery mechanisms, etc.
I look at some of this the way I look at driverless cars. As much as I like driving, if letting the computer take over reduces the risk, I'll let the computer drive. If an actual risk analysis shows that risk is reduced by 'going cloud', then I'll recommend that.
May 2, 2011 at 9:40 am
Ron Porter (5/2/2011)
That said, I can see value in pushing the data and even the applications to auto-scaling, available-from-anywhere systems. I can see value in packaging everything it takes to do so in a way that abstracts away the gritty details. I can see value in letting people smarter and more skilled than I am configure the hardware, software, delivery mechanisms, recovery mechanisms, etc.I look at some of this the way I look at driverless cars. As much as I like driving, if letting the computer take over reduces the risk, I'll let the computer drive. If an actual risk analysis shows that risk is reduced by 'going cloud', then I'll recommend that.
Years ago there was a retailer of electronics that sold a huge number of warranty contracts. People spent millions of dollars on them. The company, the name of which I can't recall right now, went out of business.
What happened to all of those warranties? Why they were useless of course. How can you get an out of business company with no brick and mortar locations to repair or replace the failed product you purchased?
They too thought that the simple act of reducing risk was a good thing. You just can't measure things that way. Reducing risk A by $5000 while increasing risk B by $5,000,000 is very bad.
Dave
May 2, 2011 at 9:56 am
Now, instead of acronyms, the industry is using visually appealing terms to sell. I remember when 'BI' came out, I was baffled. Did I miss something? Nope, same old thing I'd been doing for years, just a new marketing ploy. Now it's imagery; web, clouds, what's next? Eagles? Submarines? Shooting stars? It's makes for a lot of comedy though, especially in meetings when managers and marketing start slinging acronyms and catch phrases around. 😛
May 2, 2011 at 10:31 am
Alan Vogan (5/2/2011)
Now, instead of acronyms, the industry is using visually appealing terms to sell. I remember when 'BI' came out, I was baffled. Did I miss something? Nope, same old thing I'd been doing for years, just a new marketing ploy. Now it's imagery; web, clouds, what's next? Eagles? Submarines? Shooting stars? It's makes for a lot of comedy though, especially in meetings when managers and marketing start slinging acronyms and catch phrases around. 😛
:Whistling:
Shooting stars: Sun Starfire
Submarines: IBM Deep Blue?[/url]
Eagles: Mozilla Thunderbird?[/url]
Catchy names are nothing new I guess.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply