https://www.wired.com/story/the-cloud-is-a-prison-can-the-local-first-software-movement-set-us-free/
Tired of relying on Big Tech to enable collaboration, peer-to-peer enthusiasts are creating a new model that cuts out the middleman. (That’s you, Google.)
I mean…
I gotta say, I really hate it when people say this statement.
That’s a pithy saying, but the cloud is a totally different model than a “computer”.
The concept of “cloud” (generally) has its own way of interacting with tooling, it’s got a huge economy of scale that brings resiliency, a ton of interconnected services, etc. There’s more to it than just computers.
That’s like saying “the Highway doesn’t exist, it’s just someone else’s driveway.”—yeah, but there’s more to it than just streets.
I work in a company that runs an own cloud for most of it’s business operations and for customers. I know where the data center is and when I go there I SEE the computers running the cloud.
It’s physical hardware running virtual machines and storage servers, and network switches with absurdly and unnecessary complex configuration, all owned by, well, someone else (the company).
So yes, the features of “the cloud” are distinct from your everyday stuff done on the computer sitting under your desk, but it really is just someone else’s computer running “the cloud”.
That’s true in the same way as you are nothing else but molecules and some biochemical reactions.
It’s reductionist, and otherwise not a useful description of a human, tells nothing about interaction possibilities, lifestyle or lifespan for example.
It’s also not an accurate description, because “molecules and biochemical reactions” describes very very many life forms, just as “a computer” could be your smartphone. But aside from both being a computer, a smartphone is quite distinct from a cloud.
Have a listen to alan watts some time. We're all just molecular patterns.
The cloud is a series of clustered computer resources sitting behind load balancers, segmented by IP and DNS.
The cloud is very much someone else's computers, maintained by someone else's employees.
Source: a decade of big cloud consulting
For some definition of cloud. You also have on premises cloud. When Amazon runs their e-commerce site on AWS, are they running it on someone else's computer or not in cloud? (putting aside some tax-wise separation of individual Amazon subsidiaries)
On the other hand there are still providers that will rent you an server in their DC, but you don't get any API or anything else. At best they'll plug in HDDs that you sent them. This server hosting existed before "cloud" was a thing and it continues to exist.
I'd say that more accurate definition of cloud would be "someone else's computer with an API that customer can access". And if I'm really strict about that definition I'd drop entire first part, because it's the API that matters - computer might as well be yours.
Source: I've been on both sides of cloud from the very beginning.
again, while true that description is neither complete nor distinguished. It would get maybe 1 out of four possible points in a high school exam.
Not helpful for most things.
It's reductionist, but it gets to the point that it's not an abstract everlasting resource, it's a system that's not under your control, so it might not be always reliable. So people should be wary of service discontinuations, rules and price changes.
The point can be distilled even further, the cloud is someone else's.
Isn't part of "the cloud" being able to scale? That only works if there is a large(r) shared infrastructure layer. Of course I can have my own datacenter where I host my clustered services. But if I decide I need 20% more resources, I need to order and setup 20% more machines. On the other hand, if I just keep 20% machines idling around for the chance that I might need to scale up, I waste a lot of money.
Absolutely. My only serious problem with it comes when an individual's only option is to use someone else's infrastructure.
The issues you describe are primarily business issues. Individuals generally don't have to worry about that stuff. If the software requires using a host, then it should be able to run on a host we can set up on our own hardware.
Virtualization is wonderful, and powerful. But it can also be weaponized.
I'd say it's more about elasticity. Scaling is just very narrow aspect of elasticity.
To give you some specific example, there's a company (that I won't name) that by law has to have all data on premises. They have local cloud in their own datacentre. Part of that cloud is a set of powerful servers with ton of GPUs. Daytime they spin up VMs that employees can log into and have remote desktop for graphically intensive tasks.
Now you might be thinking "wait a second, they can't easily add GPUs in the morning as employees log in, there is no scaling and thus no cloud!" And by that definition you'd be right. But what they do with their cloud is that as the demand for VDI drops in the evening, they will start allocating the GPU and CPU resources to completely different kind of VMs that do overnight data crunching. (think geospatial data) It's completely different OS, the servers are in server subnet, not VDI network, etc.. So they are using the elasticity, but it's not just scaling.
Another counterexample is pretty frequent issue on AWS, where they momentarily run out of specific instance type in specific region. AWS support "will do their best" but you're often looking at hours of wait time before you get your instance. Now depending where you live you could go buy a server and deploy it in your own DC faster than that. Has AWS stopped being cloud provider? No, you can use the elasticity and either spawn different instance type (if your workload allows that) or in different region/AZ. You might have been just trying to replace one instance with another, not even trying to scale up, it's just the capacity for replacement wasn't there.
Nobody is saying it's not a computer, but the tooling, reliability and services make it more than just a computer.
An ant hill isn't an ant. Your consciousness isn't a neuron. The cloud is an abstraction on top of all that hardware. Each individual machine is simple and volatile, but a network of machines around the world offering reliability and resiliency create a new thing entirely that we call "the cloud".
There's a place for the cloud and then there's not, so many people host things on the cloud because they think that's the thing to do, when, just like most other things in IT/dev work, there is a time and place to use the cloud.
That's a very simplified version of it that just ignores the premise though. The cloud does a lot of things that locally-hosted software and content does not, and not all of it is simply by nature of being on another PC
Hence why the article seems to suggest advancing P2P for more uses, which is another way to visit another computer, but has many differences from visiting "The Cloud"
More accurately, it's someone else's network of pluggable computers. "The cloud" is just a convenient metaphor for "it's up there,where someome else keeps it working".
The point is to free up resources in individual companies that would otherwise be used maintaining the infrastructure.
In a lot of companies that translates to having fewer employees to pay. Enlightened companies keep those people and allocate them to other, profitable, activities.
A wonderful and Powerful effect of vitualization is the idea of declarative infrastructure. Individual companies can allocate those Cloud resources in specialized ways. It's primary value is in economies of scale.
Tangentially: Microsoft Teams and SharePoint web infuriate me daily. All the functions that should be separate programs are rolled up into one inseparable window forcing you into a single task workflow.
Want to have two folders open at once that you can drag between? Want to copy a file to your desktop? Read a message from a colleague while looking at a planner item? Pretty much any basic task that Windows 95 can handle with ease? You're screwed.
These are all things that should be separate programs handled by the OS and a samba share. The MS Office ecosystem has regressed massively over just a few short years thanks to teams.
Holy shit I suffer from this daily, and I notice no one else complains in my company.
I've been using Norton Commander and then Total Commander for like 20+ years and I'm used to being able to do everything with a couple of keypressings, and now I'm being obligated to deal with multiple slow clicks and awkwadly placed menus to do the most simple task.
I tried using the SharePoint Plugin for TC, but it requires the freaking pope to allow my loggin.
I tried using the SharePoint Plugin for TC, but it requires the freaking pope to allow my loggin.
"The power of Microsoft compels you!"
"The power of Microsoft compels you!"
"The power of Microsoft compels you!"
"Please just let me in FFS!"
Error 53003: Your sign-in request was blocked due to a conditional access policy configured on the Tenant where you tried to authenticate.
SharePoint
Oh come on! Everyone knows that SharePoint's only reason for existing is to act as a black hole for Microsoft Office documents. They go in but they never come out. Nothing intelligent can escape!
We have already seen the effects of over-reliance on a few CDNs and cloud providers: One bad push, one ill intentioned employee and potentially entire portions of the web might become unaccessible. That by itself should have been the end of this business model long ago
So you're recognizing that a bad command execution can exist in CDN or cloud provider, but where is your recognition of the tens of millions off bad command executions that happen in small IT shops every month?
I looks like you're ignoring the practical realities that companies rarely ever:
All of these things lead to system impacts and downtime that can only come from running your own datacenters.
The cloud isn't perfect, but for lots and lots of companies its a much better and cheaper option than "rolling your own".
Given the context of the article, the alternative suggestion isn't "set up your own server" but "use software that doesn't require a server", which sidesteps most of that list.
but where is your recognition of the tens of millions off bad command executions that happen in small IT shops every month?
A bad command execution in a small IT shop will only bring down a couple of websites at most. A bad command execution in large cloud providers can literally make significant portions of the web unavailable, just by the sheer number of services dependent on it.
The same applies for most of the "practical realities" you noted out: Redundant infrastructure can only work as well as the software running on it. The convenience is not worth the risk.
A bad command execution in large cloud providers can literally make significant portions of the web unavailable, just by the sheer number of services dependent on it.
You can't have it both ways. You're trying to call out all of the benefits of running your own infra, but then calling out the downsides of public cloud. Talk apples to apples or oranges to oranges. The point I'm making in the post you're responding to is that "rolling-your-own" as an organization, specifically a small or medium sized one, comes with risks that far outweigh the costs and risks of public cloud.
The convenience is not worth the risk.
That is not the opinion of non-IT business leaders make decisions to the detriment of the advice of IT departments. You're ignoring that good IT decisions don't get to be make by good IT professionals. You're always limited to the budget and power granted by your organization. That is the practical reality.
can only come from running your own datacenters.
cough.. whhhat.. all of those thing can and do occur in cloud-only companies. just because its someone elses hardware doesnt mean every single thing you listed isnt a risk.
If no legal issues stand in your way and your uptime requirement warrant the invest, you can design and host your system across multiple providers. So instead of "just" going multi-datacenter within for example Azure, you go multi-datacenter across Azure, AWS, GCP, etc.
The problem with that, is that you now have to maintain virtual infrastructure in many different syntaxes. And features of one do not exist in another.
Plus things like cash and session do not cross those boundaries.
How? Each cloud provider manages their cross-regional solutions in very specific ways, and they certainly don't cooperate with each other.
I generally think the Cloud is popular for a reason—it has different benefits and downsides to local storage and should be considered separate, as they have different purposes. Now if you're talking about a company forcing you to use their cloud when you don't need to, that's different. But there's no denying it's useful for the specific use cases.