Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Businesses Moving From Amazon's Cloud To Build Their Own

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the on-my-own dept.

Cloud 121

itwbennett writes "There are rumblings around this week's OpenStack conference that companies are moving away from AWS, ready to ditch their training wheels and build their own private clouds. Inbound marketing services company HubSpot is the latest to announce that it's shifting workloads off AWS, citing problems with 'zombie servers,' unused servers that the company was paying for. Others that are leaving point to 'business issues,' like tightening the reins on developers who turned to the cloud without permission."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481303)

Hey douchebags: [Democratic] Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases in 54-46 vote

Just had to gloat.




Re: Senate rejects background checks on gun purcha (-1, Offtopic)

linuxgurugamer (917289) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481523)

Get your facts straight, and present them properly. It was a procedural vote, and the 54 was in favor of the bill. 90% of the Republicans voted against it.

Re: Senate rejects background checks on gun purcha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481677)

I present no facts, I present Mainstream Media News article. Don't blame me fuckwad for you commie punk leftists not being able to get enough Senators (said with a straight face) to vote for your unconstitutional crap bills.

Now fuck off.




Oh and you know I'm right because lord Obama is pisssssed!!!!


Re: Senate rejects background checks on gun purcha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481763)

"Oh and you know I'm right because lord Obama is pisssssed!!!!"

Isn't it telling how the Obama is so much more pissed off at this than he is about the Boston events. What a douchebag.

Re: Senate rejects background checks on gun purcha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481967)

Remember, President Obama didn't care about bi-partisanship and polls when it came to ObamaCare and the stimulus. His tantrum yesterday was against Democracy.

Re: Senate rejects background checks on gun purcha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481747)


they took 'errr guns!!!!!

Re: Senate rejects background checks on gun purcha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481927)

Pool: 96% of Americans oppose more gun control.




Oh you tolerant liberals just crack me up. Go fuck yourself.

Re: Senate rejects background checks on gun purcha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482593)

Wow, You are offtopic, and I am feeding the trolls, but facts are facts and someone has to present them.

Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health: A national survey of 2,703 respondents found 89 percent support universal background checks; 69 percent support banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons; 68 percent support banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

Fox News: The conservative news network asked 1,008 registered voters about various policies, finding that 91 percent favored universal background checks on all gun purchases; 54 percent supported banning assault weapons; while 56 percent supported banning the sale of high-capacity magazines.

Gallup: 1,021 Americans were asked if they would want their member of Congress to vote for or against President Obama’s slate of favored gun legislation — 53 percent said “for,” 41 percent said “against.”

Gallup: A separate poll of 1,013 Americans were asked about specific gun policies. Ninety-one percent favored universal background checks; 60 percent favored reinstating the assault weapons ban; 54 percent favored prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines.

Pew: The organization asked 1,006 Americans if they thought “Obama’s proposals on guns go too far, not far enough or are about right.” While 31 percent said they went too far, 39 percent said they were about right and 13 percent said they didn’t go far enough. That gives Obama’s proposal a 21 point edge.

Washington Post/ABC News: Unlike most other polls, this survey of 1,001 adults found greater support for a ban on high-capacity magazines (65 percent) than reinstating the assault weapons ban (58 percent), though solid majorities supported both. Meanwhile, 88 percent supported universal background checks, and 71 percent supported the creation of a federal database to track gun sales.

Washington Post/ABC News: A separate poll of 1,033 Americans found that 53 percent had a “favorable” view of Obama’s gun control proposals, while 41 percent had an “unfavorable” view.

CNN/ORC: A national poll of 602 Americans found that 95 percent favored universal background checks, while 62 percent favored a ban on the sale of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Public Religion Research Institute: The think tank asked 1,033 Americans if they favored “stricter gun control” — 36 percent strongly supported it, while 24 favored it. Just 14 percent opposed and 23 percent strongly opposed it, giving those who favor stricter laws a 23 point edge overall.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Asked 1,000 adults, “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?” Fifty-six percent said “more strict,” while just 7 percent said they should be “less strict.”

New York Times/CBS News: The national poll of 1,110 Americans found that 92 percent favor universal background checks on all gun purchases; 58 percent favor a ban on assault weapons; and 63 percent favor a ban on high-capacity magazines.

AP/GfK: Of the 1,004 adults surveyed, 84 percent favored universal background checks for all gun sales, 55 percent favored a ban on “military-style” assault weapons, 51 percent favored a ban on high-capacity magazines. [] .

Nor surprising and won't matter. (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481309)

It doesn't surprise me and I don't think it will matter much.

Amazon is not particularly cheap. If you host your own, even with power, cooling and hardware, the payback time is about 4 to 6 months.

If you have a lot of load then it is going to be cheaper to host it yourself, so it's worth doing for big companies.

With Amazon of course you can start as a one man band and still have potential to grow without it getting painful from an administrative point of view.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (4, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481361)

The only case where it really made sense was when you had extremely variable load. It's nice for scientists that need to rent 100 computers for use with one project, but if you're going to be using the same resources on a day-to-day basis, then it makes much more financial sense to just own your own hardware, and rent space in an existing data center. It also makes sense if you use less than a whole server in resources, but VPS was already filling that need quite well before Amazon came along.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481453)

The only case where it really made sense was when you had extremely variable load.

Indeed, or if you're expecting to scale. The thing is, as you scale up, you can always move the baseload to dedicated servers and just do the variable part on Amazon.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482707)

Unless you expect to scale around Black Friday and the Christmas shopping seasons. Then you might get screwed when Amazon uses their cloud for their own variable load.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (4, Insightful)

thereitis (2355426) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481511)

If you're just using Amazon for compute power then perhaps, but then you've got no geographic redundancy with that single data center. Whether it's worth rolling your own solution really depends on your needs (lead time, uptime requirements, budget, IT skill/availability, etc).

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (2)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481745)

neither does amazon unless you pay them a lot more $$$

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (4, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483065)

neither does amazon unless you pay them a lot more $$$

Depending on your needs, setting up geographical redundancy with Amazon can be extremely cheap -- if you just want a cold or warm site to fail over to, you don't need to keep your entire infrastructure running at the secondary site, just replicate the data, and then spin up the servers over there when you need to fail over.

That's what my company does - we have about a dozen servers to run our website, but the secondary site has only a couple micro instances to receive data. When we need to failover, we just tell one of those servers to wake up the rest of the infrastructure and update the databases from the snapshots that have already been transferred over, including repointing DNS to the backup site. We could make the failover fully automatic, but are afraid of "split brain syndrome" leading to the failover site taking over when the primary is still fine so it's still a manual process. Our backup site is never more than 15 minutes out of date from production.

This has worked well in testing - we've done some "live" late-night failovers and it's relatively seamless -- since it's so cheap to set up the backup site (essentially we just pay for the cost of storage at the backup site), we're going to set up another region overseas for extra redundancy.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483375)

Depending on your needs, setting up geographical redundancy with Amazon can be extremely cheap

And history has shown that you pay for what you get.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481377)

Exactly. This is no different than anything else. Companies reach a certain point and hosted X becomes less viable than doing their own solution depending on the pricing model and service level provided. Email, website, call center, payment processing...

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481525)

I guess it really depends on what business you are in though. Take for instance a large company like Ford (picked because they aren't a computer/technology/web based, but large company). Their expertise has nothing to do with computers. Now, the question becomes, would it be cheaper for an organization of this size to host their own email? Most likely it would. But the real question is, do they want to devote any corporate time to even dealing with this kind of thing. Basically they would have to have a whole new division added on to their company to handle IT management, and they'd have all the fun stuff that goes along with it. It makes much more sense for someone like Amazon to host their own email because they already have a bunch of people managing servers anyway, so adding a few more servers isn't getting into uncharted territory. I mean, Ford probably uses enough keyboards that it might make sense to have their own keyboard factory. But that doesn't mean its a good business decision or that it's something they want their company to be doing.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (4, Insightful)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481573)

The thing is, when a company reaches a certain size they likely have a enough computer infrastructure to have an IT department anyway, even if they aren't an IT company. With your example of Ford, they have offices for managers, sales etc. All of those people likely have desktop computers, so they likely have dedicated desktop support. Additionally they probably have some kind of centralized authentication like active directory, which means they'll need a server and some sort of sys admin/IT infrastructure already. They likely wouldn't be adding an IT division in order to host their own email, they'd be adding an email server/management to the load of the existing IT department, which is obviously not as big an upfront overhead cost, making it more attractive.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481639)

Take for instance a large company like Ford (picked because they aren't a computer/technology/web based, but large company). Their expertise has nothing to do with computers.

Are you sure about that?

A large company must have many many areas of expertise. Obviously their goal is to make cars. But have expertise in cars, large scale manugacturing, logistics, marketing, engineering, anything required to support engineering including simulation running on supercomputers, human resources and probably a whole bunch I haven't thought of.

The point is that many of them will involve computers to a large degree, so although a company like Ford makes no money with computers per-se every area of their operation will involve computer systems. As a result they will have a huge amount of computer expertise.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482325)

Additionally there is the matter of control. You have a lot more of it if you do your own stuff. However, business often mindlessly follows the latest fashions (this explains why the execs get the big bucks - like fashion groupies). For years the trend has been to move everything out-of-house and buy "services". There recently seems to be some trend away from this, because it turns out the people who warned of the problems were often right (what a surprise). It doesn't help that many companies that offer "services" have become little more than overpriced front companies. For example, much of IBM's US operations have become little more than an overpriced front and unnecessary for India Business Machines.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481909)

The defining factor is whether you can keep more than one IT guy busy full time. If you can, then you hire at least two, one senior and one junior to at least fight fires when he's sick. If you're keeping at least two IT buys busy full time, you're going to be paying for them whether they work for you or not, but if they do work for you then you can fire them, so you have some control over what they do. If they'll just be placed with someone else if you don't like them, they're not going to work as hard for you. You need as much control as you can get over your own IT department. It's daft to contract out anything so critical when you're only adding to the likelihood of leaks and malfeasance.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482213)

It's often the case that you'll just need one, plus a support contract. The support contract will handle any issues that the IT guy might not be able to do on their own, such as speedy hardware replacement.

Flexpod is pretty neat in that regard; it has automatic monitoring that will notify the vendor in the event of a perceived imminent hardware failure. They'll begin the process of sending a technician out with the replacement part in hand often times before the admin is even aware that anything is wrong. Doesn't cost anything when it happens, and because of the HA features you have zero downtime while the hardware is being replaced.

Flexpod (or its competitor Vblock) aint cheap, but you do get what you pay for if you want an in-house HA cloud service.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481963)

I guess it really depends on what business you are in though. Take for instance a large company like Fordxxxxx GM (picked because they aren't a computer/technology/web based, but large company). Their expertise has nothing to do with computers. Now, the question becomes, would it be cheaper for an organization of this size to host their own email? Most likely it would. But the real question is, do they want to devote any corporate time to even dealing with this kind of thing. Basically they would have to have a whole new division added on to their company to handle IT management, and they'd have all the fun stuff that goes along with it. []

Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (3, Informative)

7213 (122294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482721)

Regarding Ford specifically.

You'd be surprised at the scale of their IT organization (as someone who once worked in Ford's datacenter).

They already have their own 'internal cloud' and have for some time (before 'cloud' was a 'thing'). The only thing different here is internal provisioning processes vs. Amazons credit card & go plan.

The cost of Amazon doesn't make sense, when you already have a pair of tier 1 datacenters and an IT organization more then capable of maintaining it.

Ford already HAS servers that won't be 'clouded' any time soon, so they have every bit as much justification to keep on doing things internally as Amazon would. And doing things for themselves gives them more control & likely better costs.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (1)

nine-times (778537) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482995)

But the real question is, do they want to devote any corporate time to even dealing with this kind of thing. Basically they would have to have a whole new division added on to their company to handle IT management, and they'd have all the fun stuff that goes along with it.

Obviously you've never done this kind of thing before. Ford needs IT management no matter what. Even if they use Amazon for hosting and Gmail for email and whatever else, that decision first implies that you have someone who understands the benefits and drawbacks to hosting your own services vs. going with a hosted service. People who don't understand it think that the benefits/drawbacks are obvious, but that's only because they don't understand it.

Once you've made a decision, you need to choose a vendor. You need someone on your staff to manage the setup process to make sure the solution is meeting business needs. You'll need someone overseeing the vendor for as long as you use them, and you need someone investigating new solutions to know when a superior service is being offered by someone else. Then you need people to help roll out the solution to users, provide training and documentation, and provide desktop support.

A company that size needs dedicated IT resources and management no matter what. Some MBA might think, "Oh, you just outsource it," but unless you have a knowledgeable staff managing the outsourced services, it'll be a disaster. Especially so with something like AWS, where Amazon isn't really providing a deep level of support. AWS isn't exactly a point-and-click solution for the masses.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (1)

Albanach (527650) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481383)

Does your payback time include any costs for hardware administration/maintenance?

It costs money through time in sourcing and installing hardware. It costs you to keep spare equipment that can take over in the event of hardware failure. These all need factored in. It's common when buying a box to overspec, anticipating future growth, whereas on a service like Amazon you can click and upgrade your hardware capacity when you need it.

I think there are also fewer well managed co-location sites that have good connectivity and who are interested in customers needing only a few U of space.

I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to hosting yourself but in my experience there are lots of costs saved by using cloud based servers that often get overlooked from the accounting equations.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481531)

we use Azure for a lot of things in my particular department because it helps us bypass our IT department. Sometimes we need to set stuff up really fast and only have it last for a short amount of time. It takes our IT department about a week to open ports on our firewall or map a machine to an IP....when we have 2 days to get something working this doesn't work. As far as cost isn't all that much more expensive than handling the hardware ourselves. I can also, on the fly, scale things up as I need to. It's a lot easier than buying ram...shutting down the server...getting someone to put the RAM in since I don't have access to NOC. Works perfectly for our needs. I can also run a ton of test web sites for free with Azure and then move them to production as I need to. If they stay under a certain barrier then I don't get charged for them at all since the first like 5 gig of traffic is free once I move it to a dedicated resource. Trying to do this traditionally wouldn't work for us at all...and would make things even worse.

Your mileage may vary.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (2)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481691)

It If you host your own, even with power, cooling and hardware, the payback time is about 4 to 6 months.

That depends a great deal on the scale and availability demands placed upon your infrastructure. One can deploy a "private cloud" on one or two cast-off PC's, but that will be little more than a toy. If you want to support a serious deployment (dozens or hundreds of nodes) with anything approaching usable performance, you're going to be investing in some serious network and shared storage hardware, not to mention host servers. Want HA? Still more (bigger) bucks. Still, it doesn't take much to make those investments pay. I just think that 4-6 months is a bit too optimistic in all but the most trivial installations. YMMV, of course, but 12-36 months is more like it.

Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482189)

Right now AWS compute costs about 2-3X as much as an in-house VM for me given a 5 year lifetime (we buy storage with 5 years support and hosts last 4-5 years with upgrades), it's when you need anything that needs serious storage performance that the ROI time starts to decrease sharply. Where AWS rocks is peak shaving, if you have a workload that only needs a few hours a day of powered on time then it's really easy to justify it, but for your run of the mill corporate IT systems that just kind of chug along and need to be available whenever it's definitely more expensive. The other one I can see is if you want geographic distribution and can't easily use a CDN.

Ahhh, ha ha ha. last square on buzzword bingo! (2)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482449)

get off the cloud, build our own cloud. also known as bringing the server room back into your own hands.

also known as BOFH never dies.

Slashdot fraud and abuse... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481323)

A corrupt slashdot luser has pentrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 230++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 230 or so times I noted above) -> []


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March/April 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March/April now, & 230++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcac

Re:Slashdot fraud and abuse... apk (-1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481331)


Re:Slashdot fraud and abuse... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481369)

It's one of those awesome new fangled /. trolling bots

Re:Slashdot fraud and abuse... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483355)

Stop feeding the trolls, damn it! Moderators, please mod anyone as troll who responds to trolls as "troll"; the whole point of downmodding is to make a comment less visible, and when someone responds to a -1 troll it's like they've partly undone your moderation by pointing to the stinker.

Look, kid, your "wat" adds nothing to the conversation, is offtopic, and brings attention to a buried troll. May your karma drop to APK's level, asshole. Just fucking stop it!!

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481667)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan []




That was amazing. - []


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - []


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - []


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - []


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - []


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - []


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - []


this is hilarious. - []


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - []


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - []


a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - []


a very clever parody of APK - []


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - []


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - []


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - []


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - []


KUDOS valiant AC. - []


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - []


You made my day, thanks! - []


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - []


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - []


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - []


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - []


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - []


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - []


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - []


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - []


that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - []


What? - []


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - []


[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - []


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - []


Seems more like an apk parody. - []


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - []


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - []


I can has summary? - []


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - []


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - []


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - []


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - []


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - []


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - []


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - [] []


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - []


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - []


Best. Troll. Ever. - []


I like monkeys. - []


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - []


I admire this guy's persistence. - []


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - []


APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - []


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - []


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - []


^ Champion Mod parent up. - []


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - []


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - []


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - []


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - []


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - [] []


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - []


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - []


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - []




I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - []


Can I be in your quote list? - []


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - []


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - []


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - []


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - []


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - [] []


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - [] []


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - []
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - []


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - []


you have a point - []


I do admire that level of dedication. - []


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - []


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - []


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - []


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - []


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - []


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - []


extremely bright - []


You provide many references, which is good. - []


Obviously very passionate - []


Thanks ... You should probably stay - []


Art? -- []


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - []


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - []


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - []


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - []


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - []


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - []


Most insightful post on the Internet - []


I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - []


[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - []


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - []


Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - []
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - []


I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - []


When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - []


[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - []


[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - []
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - []


[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - []


In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - []




KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - []


[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - []


[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - []


[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - []


[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - []


Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - []


[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - []


PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)


[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - []


Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - []


[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - []


[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - []


[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - []


[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - []


I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - []


[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - []


Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - []


[to apk] Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - []


[about apk] Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it. - []


[to apk] Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it. - []


[to apk] You are the most consistently annoying creature on the internet. There are people worse than you, just like cancer is worse than psoriasis, but you're more like the latter: pervasive, annoying, and always cropping up when one has mostly forgotten about it. You are that indeterminate, continuous itching that slowly erodes someone's mood until they consider cutting off a part of themselves just to stop it for a while. And like psoriasis, you're auto-immune and not fully understood by science. Slashdot continuously makes it worse by scratching that itch over and over again. It's not smart. It just encourages the disease. But everybody's got a limit to their patience. There is no cure for you. But at least, when slashdot dies, you will die with it, and there will be peace. - []




Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:


RECENT POST LINKS: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)


TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS []
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

The obvious next step... (5, Funny)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481329)

...will be to give every user their own personal cloud housed in a box under their desk.
At which point the cycle will begin again.

Re:The obvious next step... (5, Funny)

benf_2004 (931652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481351)

...will be to give every user their own personal cloud housed in a box under their desk. At which point the cycle will begin again.

That sounds like a great idea! We can call it a Personal Cloud, or PC for short.

Re:The obvious next step... (1, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481441)

Yo Dawg, I heard you like a PC, so I put a PC in your PC so you can PC while you PC.

Re:The obvious next step... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482151)


Re:The obvious next step... (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481671)

With the specs of some of the desktops coming out, they almost are a personal cloud. For about $2000, you can get a machine with 64 GB of RAM, 6 cores (12 if you count hyperthreading), dual SSDs for some speed with redundancy, + 2x1 TB hard drive for large capacity storage, and a pretty decent video card. I remember when $2000 would buy a modest computer, and I'm not even that old.

Re:The obvious next step... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481861)

If you drop the 64GB of RAM to 16GB you can get all that for about $800. That's still loads of headroom.

Re:The obvious next step... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483591)

The issue isn't the hardware, the problem is getting a decent internet connection to make your cloud available. If they start releasing apple/windows operating systems with DNS supporting software, default domain name registration and push the 'always on/always connected' everyone could have their own personal cloud, accessible from anywhere.

Re:The obvious next step... (3, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481435)

Why is there *always* a snarky comment along these lines whenever someone talks about not using a "public" cloud provider - cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means "an infrastructure setup which means I do not have to care about the infrastructure when deploying applications", whether that be owned by someone else or an internally provided solution.

The old manner of inhouse application infrastructure involved one or more application server, one or more database server, and the related network and service architecture specifically required to handle redundancy and failover - but the point is, you had to care about that service architecture when dealing with your app! Which server had spare resource to act as a failover for another application (which invariably meant you ended up with two servers allocated for the job anyway, the main and a dedicated backup or two servers which took requests on a round robin manner), which server was not to be used for these purposes, which applications do not live together etc etc.

Today, the goal is to have a "large number of essentially commodity hardware servers" acting on a level which you can forget about for most solutions (there are always going to be situations where heavily tailored hardware solutions will still exist) - where you can treat the hardware as what it should be, a resource to be used and allocated as required.

Virtualisation was the first step (in modern terms, not talking about mainframes here), and cloud takes the aspect of virtualisation several steps down the road.

This has got sod all to do with the "cycle", and everything to do with "computing as a resource".

Re:The obvious next step... (2)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481731)

I think somebody needs a hug.

Re:The obvious next step... (1)

SimplyGeek (1969734) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482619)

I agree. It's about increasing the layers of abstraction.

Re:The obvious next step... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482969)

cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means ...

Congratulations, you've passed the Rorschach test!

Inkblots are so messy though. Clouds are pretty and fluffy. You can see anything you want in them. They're perfect for marketing. I detest that old-fashioned anal retentive precise language that used to be popular in technology. This new through-the-looking-glass stuff leads to so much more fun debate.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Re:The obvious next step... (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483465)

The thing is that the term "cloud computing" derived from the way that network architectures were drawn out for visualization purposes. You drew out a diagram that consisted of boxes of different descriptions representing devices on your company's network and how they connected to one another. Then you had a line that went out to the Internet, which was represented by a cloud because you had no idea what devices your communication passed through and you did not care. I have never really liked that metaphor for putting virtualized computer services on someone else's hardware, but I understand it. If I am hosting virtual machines on your hardware, I don't care how they communicate because if I run into a problem at that level it is your responsibility to fix it. On the other hand, if I am running virtual machines on my hardware and I run into a communication problem because of a hardware level problem I need to know how the various virtual machines connect to each other as well as how the actual hardware connects together if I am going to successfully troubleshoot the problem. That means, if it is running on my hardware it is not running on some vague "cloud" but on specific hardware which is connected in a specific manner. What makes the cloud metaphor useful is that nobody in my organization knows how those machines connect and we don't really care.

Re:The obvious next step... (1)

nojayuk (567177) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481493)

Followed shortly thereafter by "thin clients"...

Re:The obvious next step... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481535)

Funny but in a way we see this happening already with sandboxes and virtual machines. I can see the day coming when every app will run in its own wholly virtualized environment, bye bye to endless patching and antivirus and all the other crud.

Re:The obvious next step... (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481689)

Laugh as you will, but spinning up a VM on each desktop that can contribute to the central processing pool has intrigued me for some time.

Security is a bit of a hangup, and it would have to be cleverly configured to only use the extra cycles... but for some applications, where you just need "a little more oomph", I think it's got merit.

Re:The obvious next step... (0)

rednip (186217) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481701)

After spending some time now as a corporate drone, I've come to believe that all 'major' plans are variations of either 'consolidation' or 'diversification', and that all big shifts in corporate power come from presenting the opposite of the last budgeted plan to senior management. However, it's important that the presenter get himself promoted to a new unrelated position before the halfway point of the project.

WebDesktop/Cloud free stuff that works?? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481367)

So what is around for a SoHo type outfit that wants to do the Self Hosted Cloud thing but can't waste money? EyeOs would work if it
1 was a still being developed project
2 hadn't gone Closed Source

business forecast: cloudy (4, Funny)

OffTheLip (636691) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481389)

Businesses don't want to miss the next big thing but like most decisions, time will tell. "I've looked at clouds from both sides now, From up and down, and still somehow It's cloud illusions i recall. I really don't know clouds at all"

Re:business forecast: cloudy (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481431)

On the upside, it makes it now possible for a business to say "Hey (hey), you (you), get offa my cloud!"

Re:business forecast: cloudy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482309)

Most people don't know that this song is originally a warning from Scottish sheep ranchers. It is supposed to be Hey McCloud, get off of my ewe.

Maybe not completely (3, Informative)

Gripp (1969738) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481407)

I work at one such company. We recently setup openstack and plan to eventually use it for our production environment. But ec2 will still stay in the picture. Both for services were the end user needs more direct access to the machine and for failover purposes. I just don't know that openstack means the end of ec2.

For one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481437)

We need to get away from the term "cloud" -- it's a misnomer. Nothing has changed since the advent of client/server architecture. More data gets crunched on the server side, more data get stored on the server side, etc. I severely dislike marketing terms used solely for money making. THis is the same crap in the hunting industry, whereby everything is now labeled as "tactical".

Companies (non-IT) and even some IT companies don't really understand how things work. They fail to realize that storage has to be redundant first, feature high availability (immediate fail over), have reasonable amounts of security processes in place to cover the threat of loss, and off-site backups that are not available through the same channels as the primary source of data. Companies do not do this well. Even "cloud" companies. I so miss the days of simple client/server. Yes, yes, I know... it wasn't really better.

Complexity is the enemy of security. Now data is funneled through clients, mobile clients, apps that really should know nothing of your data, people that should know nothing of your data, badly implemented VPNs, VPSs, bad firewall rulesets, routers with no ACLS, no blacklists, improper use of PKI and storage of private keys, etc.

One solution, if you can afford the cost, is to colocate servers that YOU own and control, in two or more DIFFERENT colocation facilities and set those servers up for HA. Hire talented admins who understand security is a process, not a product, who understand routing, BGP/ISIS/OSPF/CARP/SSH, etc. Guys who can write good Perl/Python scripts, guys who truly care about what they do. Pay them well. Hire Americans.

I can see colocation facilities becoming popular again. I know I'm leaning this direction.

Re:For one thing... (1)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481801)

We need to get away from the term "cloud" -- it's a misnomer.

No, it's just frequently misused.

One remote server, is not a cloud. Two load-balanced remote servers is not a cloud.

Dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of remote servers, configured such that data is stored redundantly and the software routes around a failed node; controlled by infrastructure such that adding or removing nodes is negligible effort -- that's a cloud.

Of course the marketers misuse it, because they want their non-cloud product to bask in the halo effect of the buzzword.

Re:For one thing... (1)

tubs (143128) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482405)

Sounds like Web 2.0 to me. Or was that just a marketing term too ... anyway according to Nist the essential characteristics of "cloud computing" are : On-demand self services, Broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity and measured service. No mention of redundancy or routes.

Computing is going back to its roots (1)

DoomSprinkles (1933266) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481445)

Thanks to initiatives such as OpenStack and Hadoop and MapReduce (etc) and the countless contributors who commit to the many projects that allow companies (and individuals with commodity hardware in their garage!) to do these amazing things for cheap, this is all possible and should be the trend! The ROI is well within acceptable margins and well.. it's just fun for us computer geeks! Computing really is moving back to it's roots and we're getting to play with amazing software projects.

Tightening reins on developers? (4, Insightful)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481467)

From this article: "like tightening the reins on developers who turned to the cloud without permission"

Let me state this in other words: "Insecure IT guys are afraid for their own jobs if they can't lord it over developers". Seriously, developers working in an API driven cloud just don't need a classic IT organization around to manage servers for them. Cloud is a disruptive threat to classic IT orgs.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481661)

Let me state this in other words: "Developers know jack and shit about security and business requirements, they will now be able to not meet either of those even faster". Developers are afraid that if the cloud thing does not replace all classic IT they might still have to explain to someone in a meeting why their code falls over all the damn time and admit that maybe more hardware is not always the best answer.

Cloud is what traditional IT orgs manage for you slick. You think it is just developers all the way down?

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481847)

Let me rerephrase that for you. "Developers don't care jack shit..." Show me a developer who is incapable of being a successful sys. admin and I will know you a terrible developer. It's all about time and interests.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482027)

Terrible developer is probably 90% of them. It's a rare day I don't get one in my office asking me some question that a simple look in the log files does not fix.

Caring about security and business needs is there damn jobs. If you don't care enough to do your own job go find other work.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483583)

Terrible developer is probably 90% of them. It's a rare day I don't get one in my office asking me some question that a simple look in the log files does not fix.

I know that feel.

Though my personal favorite is, "It's slow."

Really? What's slow? Page loads? Specific actions? Querying a massive, unindexed table? Your rockstar warning-and-error spewing code?

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (2)

Guido von Guido II (2712421) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482187)

Let me rerephrase that for you. "Developers don't care jack shit..." Show me a developer who is incapable of being a successful sys. admin and I will know you a terrible developer. It's all about time and interests.

Absolutely. I know plenty of people who've been both good sysadmins and good developers at various points in their career.

Like you say, developers aren't necessarily interested in the things that make for good administration, though. The ability to create virtual machines at will, for instance, means that developers can create more virtual machines than are needed, which results in greater administrative overhead and greater costs. They can also sidestep normal administrative procedures.

We used to have enough problems with this back in the day when everything ran on physical machines. A developer would slip a box into the data center and not tell anybody or document anything. Later we'd have to clean up the mess when we discovered that nobody had been patching the machine and it had a security problem, or they hadn't configured something properly so that it didn't start up properly on reboot. My favorite was the time the developer (who was in my opinion very otherwise very good) forgot to configure the IP addresses of a machine with anything more than ifconfig. The machine came back up after its first reboot without IP addresses and a good chunk of the customer's site was down for an extended period of time.

With virtual machines, this is so much easier.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482869)

The problem is that many developers think that they can do a better job as a sysadmin than a sysadmin can. They are usually wrong.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

ranton (36917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483467)

Its usually not that the developer thinks he is a better sysadmin than the actual sysadmin, it is that the developer is frustrated that the sysadmin won't help because it is a distraction from day to day operations. It is much easier to support the needs of standard users than it is to properly support the needs of developers (and testers). We often need to create our own private networks, create and destroy computer instances constantly, have virtual machines with dozens of OS/software configurations for testing, have servers with externally routable IPs, etc. A sysadmin would probably do a better job than a developer at doing these tasks, but usually they just don't want to deal with it. So the developer does it (often poorly) and then the sysadmin and developer fight over the results.

That is the only cause of developer / IT conflict that I have ever seen.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482907)

50%+ of developers I've worked with are terrible. But that's true in any field. 50% of the admins I've worked with were bumbling idiots, too. Welcome to reality.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481693)

As an ex-developer IT admin in a financial company with history in medical data, let me state this in other words: "IT guys who have to deal with information security are afraid for their own jobs when the company is slapped with a fine for letting confidential information leak out on some cloud service that got hacked, or when the vital business process doesn't work because of a power outage in another country, or when a minor connectivity disruption shuts down every business process everywhere."

Developers want to make things work. IT admins want to make things work reliably, securely, and perpetually. In a well-functioning organization, this means the developers ask the IT guys for whatever they need, and the IT guys either deliver it or give a reason why they can't. Security and reliability requirements aren't always the domain of the developers, but they do weigh into IT's operations. Both groups have to be aware of the others' needs, and work together to meet them. Having a developer undermine IT restrictions is just as bad as having an admin placing unnecessary restrictions.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482797)

In a well-functioning organization


Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482035)

i've seen crap deployed by developers outside of IT input
it gets put on the oldest and crappiest server just because that's a name they have known for years
no backup gets done on the databases because IT has no idea they exist
half the time there is no DR or any kind of redundancy in case of hardware failure

and when it goes down they run to IT and scream how it's IT's responsibility to make it work

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482091)

i've seen crap deployed by developers outside of IT input it gets put on the oldest and crappiest server just because that's a name they have known for years no backup gets done on the databases because IT has no idea they exist half the time there is no DR or any kind of redundancy in case of hardware failure

and when it goes down they run to IT and scream how it's IT's responsibility to make it work

Bad developers are bad developers, whether they are supported by classic IT or using the cloud. Great developers, however, don't do the nonsense you are referring to. They care a lot about security, DR, performance, availability, etc. It is this top tier developer that, given an API that procures new hardware, does not really need classic IT support.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

mordred99 (895063) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482071)

Yes and no. There are many reasons for that. Information Security Laws, and control over costs would be two of the biggest things. Without control over the API, development, etc. of applications, how do you know you are running efficiently? How do you know you don't need only 2 server but are paying for 5 because of some coding mistake? Most professional IT organizations have architecture and capacity planning people who do this stuff and when a dev can do something unilaterally, irrespective of costs to the company, that makes IT managers not happy. Also who gets in trouble when private information is stolen, hacked, etc. from something that is not managed by them. My former company got fines of up $1 million an incident for not having audit-able proof (not that it did not occur, did not have screen shots or what not) for an account being turned off. When you don't manage a service, how do you do background checks on all AWS employees, etc? I am just saying there are more and more regulations coming down the pipe, and this is how they look. Cloud services while cool for some social media app or some basic apps, if you want to follow any modicum of strict control over costs, or security, will never fly.

cowboys like you (4, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482149)

I've reined in cowboys like you for years, from one fortune 500 to another. Arrogant jackasses that can't be bothered with change management, best practices, version control, documentation, pesky things like policies, regulations and laws. Self righteous developers that can't see past their own nose too see how thier actions or inactions affect those around them.

Every single time they think they are above these things and that they know better than the industry around them. They never realize why something that works in their special environment works perfectly fine where they have the rights of a God but has all kinds of mysterious errors in production where there they are brought back down to earth. They then chafe when their development environment is set up identical to production, yet it is amazing how quickly previous mysterious bugs that plagued production and caused incredible operational costs suddenly get fixed. They of course never have to clean up multi-million dollar messes, talk to regulatory agencies, sit down with lawyers to plan how to mitigate their mess or have a face to face with an angry Attorney General.

I've only won this argument and helped companies save millions by reining in the cowboys like yourself a couple dozen times. Probably something to do.with cleaning up large multi-million dollar messes more than once.

Re:cowboys like you (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482887)

I've only won this argument and helped companies save millions by reining in the cowboys like yourself a couple dozen times.

Sounds like you should get paid pretty well for that. So instead of complaining, you should thank the OP and his ilk for helping to provide your paycheck. Next cops will complain about there being crooks. Some people don't understand where their bread is buttered.

Re:cowboys like you (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483141)

My point of fact I have been paid well for reining in cowboys like him. I traveled for years as a consultant and while that wasn't my job as such, it was something that kept coming up. Point being that every time I have to deal with a cowboy it takes up time and energy to rein them in and bring them back town to earth.

I've never lost the argument, and I've never failed to rein in any department of developers, no matter how much they thought they were big shots. It's not about my ego though, it's about keep cowboys from bringing down the house when their ego get's out of control.

Re:cowboys like you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483589)

And at the other end of the scale are companies that don't have great guys like you and just have really, really, crappy & ineffectual I.T., who are literally five years or more behind the times, make really bad decisions, and take years to roll out even the simplest things. I.T. departments who never do anything, because it's always safer to do nothing than to try something new and possibly have something bad happen. Real scared-of-their-own-shadow types.

And it's not even that it's full of bad people, but as a whole, there are enough bad ones that nothing ever happens, and the whole company is plodding along with the albatross of bad infrastructure and useless "support" around their necks. You know why no one ever calls the help desk? BECAUSE THEY NEVER FUCKING HELP. An I.T. department that can't deliver one of the things you mention -- identical dev and prod environments -- and they CAUSE exactly the problems you mention: errors in one place that don't happen the other. Or you ask them to change one setting, and they do (after 8 days and 2 change control meetings) but they also revert 4 other settings to default while doing that. An I.T. department who, when you ask them "Hey, can you make this change on the server?" asks YOU to supply documentation on how to implement the change AND a rollback plan, because their trained monkeys can't even use Google as well as I can -- GOD FORBID we would actually hire people who are properly trained in the environments in which they will be working, or who have basic I.T. skills like "problem solving" and "troubleshooting."

(Posting anon in case anyone who knows me starts to make any connections.)

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482331)

Lol.. Yes because API driven clouds are perfectly secure, perfectly stable and don't need any support, and in fact developers are the best people to think about data retention, security and availability... Naturally the developer will get the call from the user/CEO when the service is unavailable because of (insert Internet/cloud outage reason here). Hmmm maybe developers need to be reigned in because in to many cases businesses get sold a bunch of promises and get locked in on a platform not to mention some developers that code a Buisness into a corner where that developer is the only one that knows what is going on... Look there are plenty of bad guys on both sides of that fence but the cloud is a very useful tool when employed with proper overall planning in regards to availability, security, retention and Buisness strategy but by no means is it the perfect solution and in terms of cost it has major drawbacks once you hit a usage plateau of a certain size in comparison to a split local/cloud solution. There is a lot of thinking that goes into designing a solution not just an API and some logic...

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (3, Insightful)

SimplyGeek (1969734) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482769)

That's not always the case. Look at workplaces that fall under HIPAA regulations. That last thing IT wants is for developers to start up their own app projects in the cloud, whereby their apps start accessing PHI/PII. The moment that PHI goes from the local intranet and those bits go onto a 3rd party cloud service, the company will shit a brick because the developer's just violated regulations. There's a reason IT and security requires oversite of app development.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483287)

Yes, I work at a college and run into many admins who are openly hostile towards cloud services. None of their arguments have anything to do with any type of real concern. None of them can code ("I hate programming") or understand networking or databases though, so I assume they are afraid of being marginalized. They marginalize themselves by operating with limited skill sets. One day management will learn how much a liability they are, and their arguments which once had sway will be reveled as the ridiculous tripe it really is. The cloud isn't the answer to everything or an automatic cost savings, but these cloud services do offer solutions to once daunting problems. I just got off of Azure after checking it out--prompted by an above comment--and I'm pumped. As a developer it makes my life easier, and when developers start mocking up test apps and demonstrating them to management on services like Azure or EC2 the momentum will increase. BTW, Azure has an amazing interface and already seems much easier to digest and deal with than EC2.

Re:Tightening reins on developers? (1)

nine-times (778537) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483339)

Sounds like you're a developer who's pouting because your IT department won't let you run amok.

As an IT pro, the cloud doesn't scare me. "The Cloud" just pushes the IT needs to different places. Sure, it might eliminate a few jobs here and there, but you're horribly misinformed if you think it removes the need for network engineers and support personnel. I've run into too many people who sign up for cloud services imagining that it will be an IT panacea, only to find that they now need someone to help them manage the cloud service.

The problem is that developers don't always think things through in the way that a good IT pro might. You throw your cloud application up on hosted solution because it was convenient, but did you think about security? Or did you just dump a bunch of confidential data on a poorly secured server? Did you consider networking topography and bandwidth requirements? Did you do a real cost/benefit analysis, or did you just pick a solution arbitrarily because you thought it was cool? Did you think about how you were going to keep your data backed up and redundantly accessible, or are you just relying on Amazon to never have an outage?

Some developers will think about everything they need to, but in my experience, even great developers sometimes make for poor IT professionals.

What the hell is a "private cloud" (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481469)

So the idea of "cloud computing" is that out there somewhere, a company has a helluva lot of computing resources (processing, disk, network). There's an abstraction layer between the physical hardware and the user, that lets you spin up virtual machines that consume fractions of this capacity. Because the cloud provider operates at such a large scale, it can guarantee that when you want to spin up a new virtual machine, there's the physical capacity there to back it.

But that depends on scale. Ok, so an individual company buys a bunch of hardware, runs some abstraction stuff on top, and starts spinning up virtual machines. How is this different from the what they were doing pre-cloud - that is, running their own cluster of physical machines? Oh sure, you can probably make your physical machines a little bit more flexible by running arbitrary virtual machines on them, but the main benefit of the cloud is that you can utilise the provider's scale to quickly ramp up if needed. The only way you could do that in a private cloud is if you massively over-invest in the physical machines your cloud's running on. What company's going to do that? Why run a "private cloud" over a cluster?

Also, the "zombie machine" argument is pretty hilarious. I'm sure we've all heard of the infamous drywalled server [] - and that's just an extreme example of a common issue. How many places have you worked were there's random machines running that people are too afraid to turn off because nobody knows what they do anymore? Zombie machines hardly seem to be a cloud-specific issue. At least cloud providers give you an itemized list of every server you're paying for, and you can decomission them with the click of a mouse.

Congrats (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481481)

You just did a story about businesses creating server rooms.

Ooooh... the cloud!

Hype Cycle comes Full Circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481487)

Well, OK, not full circle, but you get the idea.

I think businesses are starting to realize that the cloud just means VMs, network access and storage controlled by someone else. With OpenStack maturing, regular businesses are finding it easier to host things internally, AND get all the cloudy goodness they had with AWS, Azure, Rackspace, etc.

EC2 is great when you need to rent machines for demand spikes, or if you have a massive web-based application that needs hundreds of web servers across a geography and you can't afford to buy local data center space. It's also good for startups that don't want to or can't invest in infrastructure. There will always be those niches. But it doesn't make sense for internal application hosting once you get to a certain point of stability.

Now, all of us in-house systems people have to hope the outsourcing wave is coming back around again, and if we haven't already, learn about the underlying technologies that were driving this hype.

Different needs for different scales (5, Insightful)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481567)

How hard is it to understand that the cost/benefit depends on your size?

Car analogy: If you're an individual who needs a car a couple of times a year, you rent one on those occasions. If you drive almost every day, you buy a car and you get it insured. If you're a small company, you give your travelling staff a car allowance. If you're a big company, you buy a company car scheme and insure all the cars under one policy. If you're a gigantic company, you self-insure all your staff's company cars.

Draw a graph of the cost vs scale of a third-party cloud, versus your own datacentre. At some point the graphs will cross. That's where you switch.

BS summary and title (1)

andy1307 (656570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481619)

From TFA

It’s impossible to know whether a significant number of businesses are deserting AWS and public clouds in favor of private. My guess is there’s some movement as businesses get more experience in the cloud but certainly not enough to dent the potential of the public cloud. Still, the murmurs are an indication that AWS competitors are starting to get more aggressive.

That's exactly the kind of hard data nerds use to arrive at conclusions...

Re:BS summary and title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483489)

I read TFA and other articles on that same site... these people need to get a clue and fast.

Nothing (worthwhile) to see here, move along

So . . . what? (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481651)

So, in other words, companies are leaving cloud comuputing to set up co-los? This is an option that's been available for, like, at least 15 years.

You ever get the feeling the term "cloud computing" was coined because people were desperate for something new while the economy was getting its legs back?

Re:So . . . what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482131)

"Cloud Computing" is a real thing and is useful for certain types of semi-common cases. Even a private "cloud" can be useful as it is just advanced virtualization.

"Cloud Computing" is about abstracting away implementation to the point where all you have is a massive pool of resources. You don't care where or how those resources work, all you care is that your service works; and the underlying hardware for these resources can span the globe.

Comparing "cloud" to normal virtualization is like comparing CDNs to P2P.

Pretty blatant ad posing as blog entry.... (1)

technomom (444378) | about a year and a half ago | (#43481773)

....for OpenStack. C'mon, can you be a little less obvious next time?

How hard could it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481885)

Hey, that's great. Managers who don't really understand IT operations, or what a cloud is, are having "save 50%!" dangled in front of them and are jumping at it.

I have no doubt that the "fixed costs" for servers for "roll your own" cloud are way cheaper than AWS. I have no doubt that, if you could find them and motivate them, a staff that could reasonably run this would still mean significantly lower costs.

But this is not a trivial exercise. You need good engineers. A plan. Excess capacity. Geographic diversity. Understanding of what will still cost money and what won't. Changing models of how provisioning works to take advantage of flexibility.

And most organizations, who primarily see IT as a cost center, aren't good at this. If some savings are good, more savings are better! We'll host a cloud that only has capacity for our existing apps in one of our existing data centers! You want a new virtual server for 3 hours of testing? Hey, great - fill out the same "sever request" form with three managers' signatures and a cost/benefit justification you do today for hardware we're buying.

And then they'll blame IT for being incompetent the day there's a power failure to the datacenter and everything goes down, because "the could should mean we're resilient!" according to the marketing literature.

I trust management to plan a "cost saving" move well as far as I can throw them.

the grass isn't always greener (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43481965)

on the other side..

no surprise that companies are finally figuring out the true value of owning (and controlling) their own hardware instead of relying on 3rd parties with which you have not only no control but also no guarantees other than a anti-customer/pro-provider service 'agreement'.

Instances are ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482121)

... last decade's processes. It's just a different environment to make ever more use of computers.

Random pricing (3, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482487)

One thing that has kept me away from Amazon's cloud is the unknowns with its pricing. I have visions of a DDOS either clearing out my bank account or using up my monthly budget in the first 2 days of the month. Plus if I mis-click on something I might get an awesome setup that cleans me out. I am not a large corporation so one good bill and I am out of business. But even larger companies don't like surprises. So regardless of the potential savings I am willing to spend more if the price is fixed in stone instead of chancing being wiped out. I like sleeping through the night.

Plus as a human I really like being able to reach out and touch my machines, even if I have to fly 5 hours to do it. So the flexibility of the cloud sounds really cool where the pricing is not so flexible. It would be nice to spool up an instance of a machine that isn't going to do much most of the time that doesn't actually use up a whole machine. But then when one machine starts to get pounded to give it some more juice. Plus upgrading your hardware would be much more of a dream. You move your most demanding servers to your hottest hardware and slide the idle servers over to the older crap. Plus restores and redundancy are a dream.

Then you still have the option to fully dedicate a machine in "realspace" to a demanding process. While VM does not have much overhead it does have some. So taking a server(s) that is being pushed to the maximum and sliding it onto bare metal will then allow your hardware to be used to maximum efficiency.

Then by having no real cost overhead to having more near idle machines spool up your developers can play interesting games. Maybe they want to see what your software will do with 20 MongoDB servers running instead of the current 3; or 200.

This all said, I am a fan of Linode; where I can predict my pricing very well.

OF COURSE people at an OPENSTACK conference.... (2)

Thrill Science (2845693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482585)

OF COURSE people at an OPENSTACK conference will be talking about alternatives to AWS. That's the point of the conference. What did you expect?

Amazon has convinced many people they are cheap (1)

stefancaunter (1198951) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482787)

I'd love to see more people taking on scale themselves, but unless the perception that Amazon is a good deal changes, this won't change much in the way of their dominance. Unless you've actually been taken to the cleaners by them on a project, and can convince your boss that owning/renting gear is a better plan, they will still be a first choice vendor. Decision makers read magazine articles (when they aren't playing games on their phone) that tell them Amazon saves them money. Everyone sits around in a meeting and nods their head.

Legal issues as well (2)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482857)

It's usually "cleaner" if you either don't out-source sensitive data or if you out-source it in a way that is either 100% encrypted and you hold the only keys or if it's stored in an "identifiable" physical place ("it's on THAT set of hard drives, and it's being processed on THAT set of CPUs" etc.) that isn't shared with other users.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?