Technology catch-all thread

[BigSqwert]

They also picked a pretty crappy candidate to attempt to turn into a PC Industry rockstar...

Just because you hate him doesn't mean it's a bad choice. In case you haven't noticed his albums go multi-platinum.

[Y2HH]

Just because you hate him doesn't mean it's a bad choice. In case you haven't noticed his albums go multi-platinum.

 

[bmags]

This is the sort of typical showing that certain companies, and their board of directors, are simply out of touch with reality and what people want/need/care about.

 

Microsoft does stuff like this, too. Intel is just following along, because their board is as confused as Microsoft's is. Both companies make boat loads of money, and sit on s***ty undervalued stock prices because it appears their best days are behind them. Both have great products, and neither have a CLUE as to how to market them or even why they should market them (or another valid question is IF they should even bother).

 

Intel sells CPU's, mostly to OEM's, who then resell them to people. This means advertising is almost a complete WASTE of money, as the end consumer, be it a business or a person, doesn't care if Intel is inside, and they never have. Microsoft does this same thing via Windows Marketing...most of it is simply NOT necessary. Nobody has ever watched an Intel commercial and said, damn...I need to go out and get me a new CPU@#$! It's a disconnect from reality. People see iPhone commercials, or HTC commercials and say...wow, nice phone...now THAT I'd love to get! It's akin to HTC or Apple advertising the f***ing processor in the phone, rather than the phone itself...nobody cares.

 

What this really is, is Intel is giving solid pimp backhand to every single one of their REAL engineers, who make a pittance in comparison to what I guarantee they're paying Wil.I.Am to do nothing, and then they follow it up with a solid kick in the dick by giving him an actual "higher on the totem pole" position in the company. Meanwhile, the engineers that get up and work AM to PM making those chips for them making 90k a year should seek positions elsewhere...bring your REAL talent to AMD and tell Intel to piss off and hope Wil.I.Am knows how to do the work they were actually doing.

 

This sort of thing is infuriating...and it shows how out of touch these old "executives" are in the big companies...they forget how they got where they are, and it sure as hell wasn't on the back of chip designers like Wil.I.Am, who hasn't even made a single original song in his life.

 

Meh.

 

Microsoft's "to the cloud" thing is the most disgusting ad. I puke every time I see it. From their ad I'd think that the cloud is some photo editing software.

[Steve9347]

Microsoft's "to the cloud" thing is the most disgusting ad. I puke every time I see it. From their ad I'd think that the cloud is some photo editing software.

Yeah, the cloud ads are hilarious. If only all companies had the type of ad spending abilities of Microsoft to "advertise" an idea so much that people think it's their idea and they somehow invented "the cloud".

[Y2HH]

Microsoft's "to the cloud" thing is the most disgusting ad. I puke every time I see it. From their ad I'd think that the cloud is some photo editing software.

 

The entire "cloud" hysteria going on right now is a pet peeve of mine. As replace "cloud" with "cyberspace" or "information superhighway" or "internet" and um...it's the SAME f***ING THING, and has been from the start. Every website in the world has run on "the cloud" from the get go...rephrasing it as if it's some new technology is annoying to me. It's a silly re-branding of "remote access", and I hate it.

[bmags]

I think it had it's purpose. You had to create a phrase that salesforce and dropbox could have used to explain to people what is capable now.

[BigSqwert]

I thought they were referring to cloud storage.

[Y2HH]

I thought they were referring to cloud storage.

 

Which is the same as remote access to said storage. It's one of the base concepts of the Internet and has been from the start, they're just kept on re-branding it rather annoyingly.

[G&T]

Which is the same as remote access to said storage. It's one of the base concepts of the Internet and has been from the start, they're just kept on re-branding it rather annoyingly.

 

To be fair, the concept is the same, but the implementation is different. Remote storage was originally for websites rather than users. Saving pictures and video remotely is a recent trend.

[southsideirish71]

The entire "cloud" hysteria going on right now is a pet peeve of mine. As replace "cloud" with "cyberspace" or "information superhighway" or "internet" and um...it's the SAME f***ING THING, and has been from the start. Every website in the world has run on "the cloud" from the get go...rephrasing it as if it's some new technology is annoying to me. It's a silly re-branding of "remote access", and I hate it.

 

 

I just had to explain to a customer that their dual OC3's are nearly maxed out because their CIO decided to move their email system to the cloud. In their haste to save a few bucks they forgot to ask the question so how is this actually going to work. Well they just finished the last large group of users over the weekend and now their links are pretty much pegged. Don't worry however, the magical cloud company told them that we can fix this with a settings change on their border router. LMAO

 

[StrangeSox]

Which is the same as remote access to said storage. It's one of the base concepts of the Internet and has been from the start, they're just kept on re-branding it rather annoyingly.

 

As Microsoft is advertising it, yeah, that's all it is. But the move towards "cloud computing" is starting, at least in some places. Even CAD companies like Dassault (CATIA, Solidworks) are investing in developing cloud-based CAD system.

[Y2HH]

To be fair, the concept is the same, but the implementation is different. Remote storage was originally for websites rather than users. Saving pictures and video remotely is a recent trend.

 

As Microsoft is advertising it, yeah, that's all it is. But the move towards "cloud computing" is starting, at least in some places. Even CAD companies like Dassault (CATIA, Solidworks) are investing in developing cloud-based CAD system.

 

Cloud computing is another word for dumb terminal computing...a concept that's been around from the start of the Internet. It's not new. The implementation is not new, either... It's just re-branded and called 'cloud' now. Just because people have "finally caught on" to storing video/pictures remotely doesn't make it new. I've been doing it for over a decade now.

[StrangeSox]

Cloud computing is another word for dumb terminal computing...a concept that's been around from the start of the Internet. It's not new. The implementation is not new, either... It's just re-branded and called 'cloud' now. Just because people have "finally caught on" to storing video/pictures remotely doesn't make it new. I've been doing it for over a decade now.

 

Eh, it's a little bit more than that. What they'd like to do now (and I'm not talking about the OMG! Remote Desktop! Windows crap) wasn't possible without modern bandwidth.

 

But the idea of distributed computing certainly isn't new. Hell, I remember the folding@home project from 10 years ago.

[RockRaines]

Cloud computing is another word for dumb terminal computing...a concept that's been around from the start of the Internet. It's not new. The implementation is not new, either... It's just re-branded and called 'cloud' now. Just because people have "finally caught on" to storing video/pictures remotely doesn't make it new. I've been doing it for over a decade now.

Eh, you are simplifying it based on your needs as and end user. Cloud computing nowadays is quite a bit more complicated than file shares and hosted applications. With advances in virtualization and processing pools internally and externally, the cloud has some real financial benefit to companies that have usage spikes once in awhile. Dumb terminal computing was just having your applications on a server insteads of the end users PC's, virtualization has actually disconnected the application entirely from that server as now you can virtualize the entire stack and move it dynamically across external or internal boundaries without service disruption. And that's just a piece of what cloud is. Cloud doesn't necessarily mean the Internet at all.

[Y2HH]

Eh, you are simplifying it based on your needs as and end user. Cloud computing nowadays is quite a bit more complicated than file shares and hosted applications. With advances in virtualization and processing pools internally and externally, the cloud has some real financial benefit to companies that have usage spikes once in awhile. Dumb terminal computing was just having your applications on a server insteads of the end users PC's, virtualization has actually disconnected the application entirely from that server as now you can virtualize the entire stack and move it dynamically across external or internal boundaries without service disruption. And that's just a piece of what cloud is. Cloud doesn't necessarily mean the Internet at all.

 

I'm not an end user, I'm a senior security analyst, dealing in internet/packet switching security (firewalls), VPN's, load balanced applications, in, around, and on the Internet (cloud), and have been for a number of years. I've done remote administration, virtualization, storage, all of it...I know the different uses of this "cloud", and they haven't changed by design or concept from the beginning (I've been on the internet since 1992, and before that a heavy user of BBS's). It's all packet switching at it's most basic level, regardless of what fancy term is slapped on it. I'm not simplifying it, I'm simply dispelling all the modern sales-speak bulls*** that's being created to make it sound like some new concept.

 

The "cloud" CAN have a cost benefit if used properly...however, arbitrarily moving things to the cloud will not result in savings and more often than not, it will result in a loss. Some things make sense, others do not. There are times that remote storage and remote processing can be beneficial, but most of the time, it's not, as bandwidth costs often exceed the cost of the raw hardware over time.

 

The internet *is* the cloud, they mean the same thing...everything you just described is merely ANOTHER use of the Internet. The internet is not the web, it's not email, it's not virtualization...it's ALL of that, and it ALWAYS has been all of that. Just because people are discovering new uses for the Internet/Cloud/Info. Superhighway/Cyberspace (which aren't new, as I said), doesn't make it new. These uses have always been there both in reality and in potential, and yes, like a user above said, modern bandwidth is making these uses more visible...but beneath it all, they've always been there...that was the idea behind the design of packet switching in the first place: You can be anywhere and do anything on such a network...

 

But it's still not new.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

And keep in mind, like I said, the cloud hype is a pet peeve of mine, so I find the new overuse of the word highly annoying.

 

I hated cyberspace.

 

I hated information superhighway.

 

...and now I hate cloud. The words are merely interchangeable, and like I said, and mean the same thing.

 

We store our email on the cloud = We store our email in cyberspace = we store our email on the internet, etc.

 

You can replace email with servers, backups, processing, etc...that was my point. A modern -- and annoying -- re-branding of the same old.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Y2HH

[mr_genius]

And keep in mind, like I said, the cloud hype is a pet peeve of mine, so I find the new overuse of the word highly annoying.

 

it's the new annoying buzzword.

 

anyways, cloud isn't even a new schema, thin client has been around a long time. plus, people think everyone is going to just tap into the cloud and it will run everything they need on a super thin client - too bad there isn't even remotely enough bandwith to handle this if everyone started using it.

 

edit: i'm not talking about internal virtualization

 

A modern -- and annoying -- re-branding of the same old.

 

agreed. but the industry needed a new buzzword to sell stuff.

 

"it's a high tech cloud, not a server. you want to buy now?"

Edited January 29, 2011 by mr_genius

[RockRaines]

I'm not an end user, I'm a senior security analyst, dealing in internet/packet switching security (firewalls), VPN's, load balanced applications, in, around, and on the Internet (cloud), and have been for a number of years. I've done remote administration, virtualization, storage, all of it...I know the different uses of this "cloud", and they haven't changed by design or concept from the beginning (I've been on the internet since 1992, and before that a heavy user of BBS's). It's all packet switching at it's most basic level, regardless of what fancy term is slapped on it. I'm not simplifying it, I'm simply dispelling all the modern sales-speak bulls*** that's being created to make it sound like some new concept.

 

The "cloud" CAN have a cost benefit if used properly...however, arbitrarily moving things to the cloud will not result in savings and more often than not, it will result in a loss. Some things make sense, others do not. There are times that remote storage and remote processing can be beneficial, but most of the time, it's not, as bandwidth costs often exceed the cost of the raw hardware over time.

 

The internet *is* the cloud, they mean the same thing...everything you just described is merely ANOTHER use of the Internet. The internet is not the web, it's not email, it's not virtualization...it's ALL of that, and it ALWAYS has been all of that. Just because people are discovering new uses for the Internet/Cloud/Info. Superhighway/Cyberspace (which aren't new, as I said), doesn't make it new. These uses have always been there both in reality and in potential, and yes, like a user above said, modern bandwidth is making these uses more visible...but beneath it all, they've always been there...that was the idea behind the design of packet switching in the first place: You can be anywhere and do anything on such a network...

 

But it's still not new.

I am not even talking about leaving the firewall, the internet has nothing to do with what I was describing above.

 

And I know its not new, grid computing and the mainframe did alot of this many many years back. However the increase in virtualization enhancements has made the "cloud" alot easier for corporations to use.

 

For example, I can drag a drop an entire application stack (server, routers, firewall, load balancer etc) on one console and deploy this application in mere minutes without moving a single box around. That is an amazing enhancement and is part of this concept of the "cloud". This process with applications tied to specific pieces of hardware was not only expensive, but time consuming for companies for years. I can show you a 100% virtualized infrastructure of a company located in the loop and show you a 50% reduction in spending overall in their data center and throughout their organization. They are also using a greater percentage of their hardware assets and ensuring a much high level of service to their business. It is all because of this cloud concept, and most of the benfit comes from the internal cloud.

 

As for the external cloud, or the new concept of grid computing, I think there are some cost benefits of the SaaS marketplace and also remote capacity, but like you said, alot of this has been done before in outsourcing movements. Most of the cost benefits I have been seeing have been from people treating hardware like a commodity and making the movement and performance of applications fluid. I spoke with a CIO from a fortune 500 company a few months back he told me that his philosophy is that he doesnt give a s*** where the applications are running and what they are running on, if a server goes down he wants a new one to spin up instantly. All he cares about is the level of service that is being delivered to the business and as long as that does suffer, he wants costs to be cut down as far as they can be.

[BigSqwert]

What the heck is the Internet anyway?

 

[bmags]

It still confuses me. I've been trying to replace my tubes for a while now.

[iamshack]

What the heck is the Internet anyway?

 

Oh that is just priceless. It's amazing to think that was only 15 years ago or so.

 

And I've always thought Katie Couric was hot.

[lostfan]

And I've always thought Katie Couric was hot.

^^

 

This. And she's still hot. Mmmmm cougar meat.

[HuskyCaucasian]

What the heck is the Internet anyway?

 

I like how the email address is labeled as "Internet Address".

[knightni]

"You don't need a phone line to get on the internet?"

 

[Y2HH]

I am not even talking about leaving the firewall, the internet has nothing to do with what I was describing above.

 

And I know its not new, grid computing and the mainframe did alot of this many many years back. However the increase in virtualization enhancements has made the "cloud" alot easier for corporations to use.

 

For example, I can drag a drop an entire application stack (server, routers, firewall, load balancer etc) on one console and deploy this application in mere minutes without moving a single box around. That is an amazing enhancement and is part of this concept of the "cloud". This process with applications tied to specific pieces of hardware was not only expensive, but time consuming for companies for years. I can show you a 100% virtualized infrastructure of a company located in the loop and show you a 50% reduction in spending overall in their data center and throughout their organization. They are also using a greater percentage of their hardware assets and ensuring a much high level of service to their business. It is all because of this cloud concept, and most of the benfit comes from the internal cloud.

 

As for the external cloud, or the new concept of grid computing, I think there are some cost benefits of the SaaS marketplace and also remote capacity, but like you said, alot of this has been done before in outsourcing movements. Most of the cost benefits I have been seeing have been from people treating hardware like a commodity and making the movement and performance of applications fluid. I spoke with a CIO from a fortune 500 company a few months back he told me that his philosophy is that he doesnt give a s*** where the applications are running and what they are running on, if a server goes down he wants a new one to spin up instantly. All he cares about is the level of service that is being delivered to the business and as long as that does suffer, he wants costs to be cut down as far as they can be.

 

Are you a salesman, by chance? Because you sound like one. I'm not saying it's a bad thing...but engineers and salesmen don't mix well when they're trying to discuss the Internet/Cloud, etc. This discussion will go the way of oil and water.

 

I wasn't just speaking about the firewall in specific, I was making a point that I'm a touch (A LOT) more advanced than a normal end user, and once again, every single thing you described is exactly the same to me, whether it be an "internal cloud" or "external cloud", it's STILL packet switching between network segments beneath all the fancy lingo, hype and buzz words you can come up with. My point in all of this is that "cloud" is merely the latest, and interchangeable buzz word for "packet switching", and sounds newer than saying cyberspace/internet/info. superhighway. It doesn't matter if it's a server in China or sitting right next to your desk, it's STILL packet switching via transmission control, and that's STILL the base idea of the "Internet/Cloud/Information Superhighway/etc". There is no distinguishable difference, whether it's virtualized or not, whether it's local or remote. It's still the base idea behind the Internet, and it's still exactly as I said above, a completely interchangeable word with any of the other historic buzz words used to describe it.

 

An application stack? An application has nothing to do with a firewall, which has nothing to do with a router, and so on. These devices serve completely different ends on completely different layers of TCP. This is pure sales speak, because it means nothing to the people who implement and understand how it really works. If I had to guess, this buzzword is being borrowed from the often incorrectly used "TCP stack" OSI model.

 

A firewall/load balancer/router/application all on the same box, not to mention virtualized, is a massive clusterf*** of fail, and completely destroys the necessity of the firewall in the first place. I've been to plenty of sales meetings where they try to sell this garbage for years on end, showing the massive cost savings, and it's summarily dismissed. There is a reason we want, and insist, on keeping some of these tasks separated, and virtualizing all of them artificially removes this separation of duty and opens the potential of bypass via bridging or other means.

 

Again, this is no different than "cloud storage", or tossing "email on the cloud", virtualization CAN BE good if used properly...but arbitrarily tossing every layer of the network onto one virtual box is beyond fail. There ARE things virualization is good for, just as there are things "the cloud" is good for, and then there are things it's not good for, and what you described above as "an application stack" is an example of what virtualization it's NOT good for.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Y2HH