Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Historic conciesness

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Not sure why you think AWS or Azure (or the other majors) aren't suitable for "ordinary users," for indeed they absolutely are suitable. Try it out yourself. Create an account at AWS -- for the first year, usage is free. Fire up Ubuntu on a t2.micro instance type. There ya go: a server in the cloud, ready for whatever you want to do with it.

    Comment


      #32
      Because I don't fancy doing anything like that. It is too big, too convoluted. I need to feel at home.

      Comment


        #33
        Hm, then I'm not sure what the point of this conversation is.

        If I understand you correctly, you're asking about cloud services that are easy to use and understandable for beginners. I've explained that AWS is a good fit for these requirements, and you reply that it's "too big, too convoluted." That's false: AWS can be as easy or as complicated as you wish. You can fire up a single instance and manage it via SSH and a web console. Or you can build complex multi-tiered architectures with full geographic redundancy, data replication, and continuous operation under degradation. Just because the latter is capable doesn't mean the former is "convoluted."

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by SteveRiley View Post
          Save:


          Open:


          I would see those icons as upload and download not save and open.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by SteveRiley View Post
            Hm, then I'm not sure what the point of this conversation is.

            If I understand you correctly, you're asking about cloud services that are easy to use and understandable for beginners. I've explained that AWS is a good fit for these requirements, and you reply that it's "too big, too convoluted." That's false: AWS can be as easy or as complicated as you wish. You can fire up a single instance and manage it via SSH and a web console. Or you can build complex multi-tiered architectures with full geographic redundancy, data replication, and continuous operation under degradation. Just because the latter is capable doesn't mean the former is "convoluted."
            I think that the point is that basic save and load operations on a local disk are much more "at home" than cloud. And cloud can never replace that unless you make it really personal and something that is in charge of by the user, in the sense that the user is in control, or the group the user belongs to (and it is a real belonging) is in control.

            The problem with cloud mostly is that it is out of your control and you usually don't have a personal relationship with the providers. I believe the essense of "professional relationship" is overrated; you also have to feel at home in a relationship, and sometimes that means personal service. In Google et. al, you are not a client. That changes when you start paying money for the service. But still... as long as you are at the behest of big corporations that might have some form of money-making scheme based on your clientele, it will never work. I'm big in favour of paid services.

            I'm sure AWS is all fancy but in terms of historic consciousness, the difference is between, and the argument is about: can cloud replace a local storage?

            And you get also issues of connectivity. There are people who send harddisks to a cloud provider for upload, so to speak, because they have too much data for it to be transferred over a link. Which means that if you want to end your clientele with them, you will have to send another harddisk to get a download going. It doesn't seem all that fancy to me.

            "The difference is they call him king, the difference frightens me."

            Cloud can be seen as king, but where does that leave the local control person? The one who wants to be independent? I'm not sure where it leaves him (or her). I'm still busy (after all this time) setting up a local music library in my network. I failed before, ie. my previous attempts were not all that successful. I want to run Squeezeboxes but the idea is to enable them to do something different. They need a tweak. Their menu structure is also real bad. I don't know where to begin, and where it would ever end. I don't like the idea of using tablets only in a household for certain tasks such as display tasks. A tablet is a handheld, it is not an applicance in a home. Given enough time, I am willing to learn the skills to change the firmware of the Squeezebox slightly, that is, I am wanting to do that thing. I'd like to have all kind of things going but presently I don't even live at home. I'm not in the process of "learning to do something" no I just go and do it. Learning happens along the way, it always does. Some call that "undaunted by fate" or even "fearless" ;-). (Some might in stead call it crazy ;-)).

            So I don't know. The latest Squeezebox offerings don't even connect to a local network directly anymore. They go through a server on the internet before they make the connect to your local. That means if the link is down, your local collection is even inaccessible. I was wanting to write "local accessory" it will be inaccessible. Your local accessory will be inaccessible. That's a bad thing. In my book at least. On the other hand:... cloud can provide for a lot of safety, I have noticed. Everything else can fall by the wayside, and as long as you have some membership or some subscription going, you can still access your data. For instance, I have music stored in a Bandcamp account. Those are purchases. You always have access to all your purchases everywhere, with just a smartphone app. That is marvellous. That is just wonderful. That is the way it is meant to be.

            When in university the campuses had big networks with a lot of 'illegal' data on them. The university tried to shut it down. That is the downside of being local, everyone can do something to you. But legal cannot long survive, that is to say illegal, can not long survive?... on the net. If you have access and it is legal, you are ready for some trouble if the service disappears. If it is illegal, it won't probably disappear, except when the legals shut it down. User friendliness of illegal stuff is also not always all that great. But Bandcamp is wonderful for they are cheap purchases of quality music, it is just that many of them are hardly known. Are very unknown. I love everything about Bandcamp except that it doesn't seem to catch on.
            Last edited by xennex81; May 15, 2015, 06:19 AM.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by xennex81 View Post
              I'm big in favour of paid services.
              Then AWS is perfect for you

              Originally posted by xennex81 View Post
              I think that the point is that basic save and load operations on a local disk are much more "at home" than cloud. And cloud can never replace that unless you make it really personal and something that is in charge of by the user, in the sense that the user is in control, or the group the user belongs to (and it is a real belonging) is in control. . . . I'm sure AWS is all fancy but in terms of historic consciousness, the difference is between, and the argument is about: can cloud replace a local storage?
              Start up a t2.micro instance. Create an S3 bucket. Install ownCloud on the instance and point its data directory to the S3 bucket. Now install the ownCloud sync client on your local devices. Configure it to sync with your ownCloud instance in AWS. Now you have the best of both: local storage that's constantly replicated to the cloud. If either one of them goes boom, you still have the other.

              Originally posted by xennex81 View Post
              I think that the point is that basic save and load operations on a local disk are much more "at home" than cloud. And cloud can never replace that unless you make it really personal and something that is in charge of by the user, in the sense that the user is in control, or the group the user belongs to (and it is a real belonging) is in control.
              You are in complete control over your data in AWS. Just because you don't have physical access to the actual hardware doesn't mean you lose control over the data.

              Originally posted by xennex81 View Post
              The problem with cloud mostly is that it is out of your control and you usually don't have a personal relationship with the providers. I believe the essense of "professional relationship" is overrated; you also have to feel at home in a relationship, and sometimes that means personal service.
              Very few people actually want this. "Personal service" from free providers means you aren't the customer, but instead the product: all that "personal service" you give to Facebook or to Google's free services helps their actual customers, the advertisers, make money. Only the very largest of enterprises might want "personal service" from AWS or Azure; and this is because they are writing million-dollar-a-month checks. The vast majority of AWS customers are extremely happy with the hands-off approach AWS takes. Because AWS gives you a ton of control over your data: it's called "self service."

              Originally posted by xennex81 View Post
              And you get also issues of connectivity. There are people who send harddisks to a cloud provider for upload, so to speak, because they have too much data for it to be transferred over a link. Which means that if you want to end your clientele with them, you will have to send another harddisk to get a download going. It doesn't seem all that fancy to me.
              The issue here is that the speed of light has an upper bound. Sometimes, for massively large amounts of data, the post office is faster than fiber. Can't change the laws of physics, you know.

              Comment

              Working...
              X