Beta
×

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!

Don't Be a Server Hugger! (Video)

Roblimo posted about 3 months ago | from the old-stewball-was-the-most-loyal-server-horse-we-ever-done-had dept.

Cloud 409

Curtis Peterson says admins who hang onto their servers instead of moving into the cloud are 'Server Huggers,' a term he makes sound like 'Horse Huggers,' a phrase that once might have been used to describe hackney drivers who didn't want to give up their horse-pulled carriages in favor of gasoline-powered automobiles. Curtis is VP of Operations for RingCentral, a cloud-based VOIP company, so he's obviously made the jump to the cloud himself. And he has reassuring words for sysadmins who are afraid the move to cloud-based computing is going to throw them out of work. He says there are plenty of new cloud computing opportunities springing up for those who have enough initiative and savvy to grab onto them, by which he obviously means you, right?

cancel ×

409 comments

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

Wrong concern (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011887)

I don't think most admins are worried about losing their job, I think they are worried about cloud services going down or disappearing and having nothing they can do about it, let alone information security and other factors.

Re:Wrong concern (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011985)

What, you're saying that cloud servers don't manage themself? This is outrageous!

Re:Wrong concern (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47011989)

Yeah, this is a reasonable approach(unlike some other more fallacious arguments). Some of us are even bound by law to maintain the integrity of certain classes of information(personal, medical, financial). Yielding physical control to another organization, no matter what their reputation, removes your ability to perform due diligence.

Re:Wrong concern (2)

sconeu (64226) | about 3 months ago | (#47012203)

On top of that, you then require a much fatter pipe to the internet, as opposed to keeping your file servers and such in-house, where you can run 100BaseT or 1000BaseT and get high speed connection to your servers.

Re:Wrong concern (5, Insightful)

ravenswood1000 (543817) | about 3 months ago | (#47012091)

I like my data to not be in the hands of someone else. I don't want it examined, copied or accidently Googled. Fuck this Curtis Peterson

Re:Wrong concern (2)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 3 months ago | (#47012101)

and THEN losing their jobs?
since the failure would be their fault, not the PHB who pushed it on them due to 'cost cutting'

Re:Wrong concern (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012139)

they are worried about cloud services going down or disappearing and having nothing they can do about it, let alone information security and other factors.

My uptime has more nines than Amazon's.

Mod parent up! (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 3 months ago | (#47012199)

First off, who cares what "Curtis Peterson says"?

Person who works for company producing X says everyone needs X.

If I move to "the cloud" then I have the ADDITIONAL worries of:

1. YOUR connection going down.
2. MY connection going down.
3. Getting access to YOUR facility to troubleshoot a problem. Physical / remote / whatever. Why isn't that server booting?
4. SOMEONE ELSE at your facility annoying the government so that the FBI / CIA / NSA / whatever takes ALL the servers.
5. How do I know that what I legally have to keep private really is private?
6. What happens to my systems when all of your CxO's decide that they need more yachts so they jack up the pricing?

Fuck you, Curtis Peterson. RingCentral is the LAST place I'd put my data. You don't even understand why people are avoiding "the cloud" but you're happy to make up stupid insults to describe them.

Cloud needs server huggers (5, Interesting)

chiefcrash (1315009) | about 3 months ago | (#47011893)

Isn't the "cloud" just a bunch of servers? Should nobody be hugging THOSE servers either?

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (-1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47011947)

"Isn't the electrical grid just a bunch of generators? Should nobody be hugging THOSE generators either?"
--A terrible argument for running your own on-site diesel generator

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012031)

Somewhere down the line someone needs to be running a generator.
If you have specific requirements in terms of availability of electricity then it seems like a pretty good idea to have some of your own generators.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47012093)

And the vast majority of companies don't have those hyper-specialized needs. Hospitals: yes. Lawyers' offices: no.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012187)

Having done support for dozens of law firms over the years, 90+% of them have UPS battery backups to run their servers and network gear for a few hours. Its not a generator, but its juice enough to bridge the small outages and gracefully shut down if there are power issues.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (3, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#47012275)

"And the vast majority of companies don't have those hyper-specialized needs. Hospitals: yes. Lawyers' offices: no."

For electricity? Perhaps.

But the need to maintain control of their own documents is no less for a lawyer than a Hospital, as any lawyer would tell you.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47012335)

You're talking about the physical components versus the software components.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (5, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | about 3 months ago | (#47012097)

I run two diesel generators, they're backups for when the local utility stuffs up their responsibility and fails to provide power, it's exactly the same reason I'm not going to outsource my server farm to someone else.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47012125)

I wasn't saying it was never necessary. Just that "Someone needs to" is a far cry from "I need to"

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (4, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | about 3 months ago | (#47012209)

If you can manage to get a link to a "cloud server" where the SLOWEST link to the server meets or exceeds 1Gbps for small businesses (with 30ms or less latency) , and you can get 10Gbps or faster (and bond multiple links to expand bandwidth further) for larger organizations, AND have daily backups in easily-migrated formats stored in escrow by the cloud provider in the event that the government raids and confiscates servers because some drug cartel or "piracy" ring happened to have cloud services on the same physical box as your virtualized servers, AND you have net neutrality so Comcast/Time Warner/Cox/etc. can't throttle your network speeds because you're in the "top 1% of users" (read: you're actually using the services they offered to sell you and you agreed to buy then they reneg on their contracted offerings) then it will be a practical option.

Until then, fuck cloud servers. Seriously.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (2)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 months ago | (#47012305)

Which is fine given the lack of any presented argument against running your own generator (or server).

It is however a pretty good refutation of the summary claim that admin's are avoiding moving to the cloud because they are afraid of losing their jobs. The servers are still there whether at a cloud service or individual company and still need administrated. If anything cloud shops create more admin jobs. The company still has to admin their servers, they just don't rack and stack them.

Putting things "on the cloud" is nothing more or less than virtualizing servers in a datacenter. A company can do that for themselves. Using a cloud service does nothing more or less than outsource some of your rack and stack jobs and virtualization platform administration. Which probably isn't saving much since said services have to have that staff and pay them and recoup the cost plus a profit from what they charge you and it is definitely handing complete and total access to your systems and data to a third party.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012087)

No you see if you are an admin at a cloud service provider you should just place all your cloud servers in the cloud cloud.

Re:Cloud needs server huggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012151)

Well, as a former Ring Central customer, I would have to guess that they did in fact throw away all their servers, and run their shitty product on 2 toasters and a netbook.

Who the hell cares? (0)

neiras (723124) | about 3 months ago | (#47011897)

What's next, Slashdot - "One Weird Trick That Clouds Your Cloudy Cloud Cloud?" ...back to SoylentNews.

All I can say to that is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011901)

who?

Excersise for the reader: (5, Insightful)

xlsior (524145) | about 3 months ago | (#47011909)

Whenever you see "in the CLOUD!", mentally replace it with "using someone else's server" -- all of a sudden it looks a whole lot less appealing. Yes, you gain some flexibility, but you lose a LOT of control. Case in point: gamespy's recent announcement that they're closing up shop, and all of a sudden hundreds of major games from big-name software houses will lose their online multiplayer abilities. How's 'the cloud' working out for them?

Re:Excersise for the reader: (5, Funny)

zdzichu (100333) | about 3 months ago | (#47011979)

There's a Chromium extension replacing all occurences of ”in the cloud” by ”in my butt”. Conveys the same message.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012267)

There's a Chromium extension replacing all occurences of ”in my butt” by ”in my butt”. Conveys the same message.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011993)

This post sums up the BS spewed by the schmuck quoted in the article. Let's move on.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47012017)

How's 'the cloud' working out for them?

About as well as investing in AIG turned out for some people. Risk/reward continues to be a thing people have to evaluate. I'm not defending the status quo evaluation as being correct, just that 100% risk aversion isn't necessarily a reasonable approach.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012037)

Whenever you see "in the CLOUD!", mentally replace it with "using someone else's server"

This.

My company's proprietary data is never going onto someone else's remote server. Ever.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012045)

Not a valid comparison. Gamespy provided a specialized service which had nothing to do with the cloud.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 3 months ago | (#47012161)

You mean, they provided distributed, off-premise Infrastructure-as-a-Service to other vendors in exchange for money so that said vendors wouldn't need to do handle multiplayer gaming server infrastructure themselves?

Yeah... totally different from "the cloud". What was the OP thinking?

Re:Excersise for the reader: (3, Informative)

Kremmy (793693) | about 3 months ago | (#47012259)

Absolutely a valid comparison. GameSpy provided cloud-hosted services to video game developers. They recently stopped providing those cloud-hosted services. The only way you could possibly think it has nothing to do with the cloud is by having no understanding of what makes a cloud.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012057)

I just replace the word cloud with server.
It makes the whole summary hilarious.
Maybe this guy thinks all the computation is just being done in some magic interaction between all the switches that make up the internet.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (1)

Catbeller (118204) | about 3 months ago | (#47012247)

I replace the word "cloud" with mainframe. 'Cause that's what a mainframe is. Amazing to think that the Hollywood movie script writers are getting it right by accident now.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (3, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#47012137)

I just replace "in the cloud" with "let somebody else control your valuable data".
"Cloud" is great for some things, not so good for others. Just like every other technology ever invented.
Anybody who doesn't understand this is either a complete retard or a filthy, lying marketeer. Which one are you, mr. Peterson?

Re:Excersise for the reader: (5, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about 3 months ago | (#47012271)

Anybody who doesn't understand this is either a complete retard or a filthy, lying marketeer.

You've got a bad assumption there -- namely that the two are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that the first is a PREREQUISITE for the second. So, by definition, if he's a filthy, lying marketeer, he's also a complete retard.

By the way, my guess is that he's both.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (2)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#47012149)

Whenever you see "in the CLOUD!", mentally replace it with "using someone else's server" -- all of a sudden it looks a whole lot less appealing.

With it also being rather unclear who else might have access to this server.
There's also the issue that in order to use a server on a LAN generally the only requirement is the LAN. Use "the cloud" and in addition to the LAN you need connectivity between your LAN and where ever the server might actually be.

Re:Excersise for the reader: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012289)

Case in point: gamespy's recent announcement that they're closing up shop, and all of a sudden hundreds of major games from big-name software houses will lose their online multiplayer abilities.

That's not a bug; it's a feature. The game companies get to throw up their hands and blame the cloud. They save money and dodge the bad PR. Oh, and they sell more new games too.

not news (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011921)

Breaking News! Someone selling cloud services says anyone not using his type of product is backwards. Details at 11.

It's a matter of trust (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011923)

The NSA killed cloud computing.

Re:It's a matter of trust (0)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 3 months ago | (#47012007)

No they didn't, cloud computing is definitly a big thing even after we learned that the NSA is doing more less what they are supposed to do.

Re:It's a matter of trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012041)

They did kill it for potential users outside of the US. These raging capitalist idiots always trying to sell some service instead of just taking care of their own. I really am starting to dislike western, capitalist culture more and more. I cannot turn the damned corner without some douchebag trying to sell me something.

Re:It's a matter of trust (0)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 3 months ago | (#47012105)

What's so specific about the US? I really don't understand why cloud computing would be dead for people outside the US.

Re:It's a matter of trust (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 3 months ago | (#47012143)

or figuring out ways to sell your eyeballs out from under you :(

Yeah... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011929)

Fuck off.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011931)

Just as soon as I can trust you to operate a server with my customers' (and my) proprietary data without fucking up.

Right now, my uptime has more nines than Amazon.

Also HIPAA, SOX, EU privacy laws blah blah blah

Great idea! (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 3 months ago | (#47011937)

This is a wonderful idea! Placing control of your mission-critical infrastructure in the hands of others is DIVINE!

Sorry, but I think we'll retain control of our own stuff. At least when we have downtime then we can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, rather than whine helplessly to tech support.

It's Called Bandwidth (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011951)

I do not move to the "Cloud" because the price for the bandwidth negates any advantage. Besides, I am still not sold on security. Letting a "third party" have all of our financials and records just makes me cringe. So... yeah, I am a server hugger and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Prick.

Re:It's Called Bandwidth (1)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#47012221)

I do not move to the "Cloud" because the price for the bandwidth negates any advantage.

Especially if you need "upstream" bandwidth.

Besides, I am still not sold on security. Letting a "third party" have all of our financials and records just makes me cringe.

In practice you would end up having to rely on many third parties. Since you need all of them to provide connectivity to the remote server.

That's not surprising (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011953)

Oh look a condescending dickbag who labels people who don't buy into his business model.

Fuck you Dice, fuck you and your sponsors.

Slashdot, you drunk. Go home! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011955)

Ad disguised as a troll. These are getting more common here.

Cloud, schmoud! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011961)

Just because you don't have your own server doesn't mean there isn't one. Somebody has to actually run the server somewhere.
Or is it clouds all the way down?

Re:Cloud, schmoud! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012227)

I run a hypervisor on my EC2 instance and sell that to other people who do the same, you insensitive clod!

Re:Cloud, schmoud! (1)

CaptSlaq (1491233) | about 3 months ago | (#47012303)

Just because you don't have your own server doesn't mean there isn't one. Somebody has to actually run the server somewhere. Or is it clouds all the way down?

Something like that... [xkcd.com]

cough cough adobe, cloud, ... (1)

TobinLathrop (551137) | about 3 months ago | (#47011963)

I hate this everything can be in the 'cloud' well no not everything can or should be as seen by todays lack of productivity for users who can't authenticate with Adobe.

Adobe Creative Cloud (5, Insightful)

prestonmichaelh (773400) | about 3 months ago | (#47011965)

Has anyone checked out Adobe Creative Cloud in the last day or two?

How is moving everything to the cloud working out for those users?

You can take my local servers from me when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Re:Adobe Creative Cloud (4, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 3 months ago | (#47011999)

Re:Adobe Creative Cloud (5, Funny)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 3 months ago | (#47012073)

It's Adobe's fault for hugging their cloud servers instead of putting them in the cloud....

Re:Adobe Creative Cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012141)

Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com]

Re:Adobe Creative Cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012219)

We heard that you like the cloud, so we put your cloud in the cloud, so that you can cloud while you cloud!

Re:Adobe Creative Cloud (1)

Atticka (175794) | about 3 months ago | (#47012239)

Beat me to it!

Now we have to deal with peer pressure in the datacenter! Dirty cloud huggers!

Don't be a dick hugger Curtis Peterson (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011973)

Sysadmins says Curtis Peterson is a huge dick hugger. He just can't stop riding the newest latest dick there is to ride. Take it up your ass chasm sir!

Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011981)

Great, let's give google/dropbox/whoever access to all my personal private data.

Yea' sure.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47011987)

Because I can depend on the internet ALWAYS working.
I can depend on the 'cloud' server farm to ALWAYS be up.
They will always be cheaper than my own server.
They won't ever increase their prices.
They will never ever submit to a NSA/FBI/CIA 'request' without telling me.

Oh, and the internet NEVER breaks. Did I mention that?
There are never backhoes digging where they shouldn't and drunk drivers never crash into the wrong pole.
My business that needs systems to always work internally never needs to worry because the internet always works.. yea' right.

Re:Yea' sure.. (1)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#47012269)

There are never backhoes digging where they shouldn't and drunk drivers never crash into the wrong pole.

You missed out ships dropping their anchors where they shouldn't. When can potentially be an issue even if you are hundreds of miles inland. It's possible for a link being broken to affect you even if you wen't even using it.

Unless your app needs more than 4 GB of RAM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012005)

RAM in the cloud is still expensive, as simple as that.

Leasing is always more expensive than buying (4, Interesting)

davecb (6526) | about 3 months ago | (#47012015)

It's cheap in the short run, especially if you can't afford the hardware. That's why people used to lease time on IBM mainframes in computer centres. Now people lease time on x86s in computer centres, not realizing that buying enough for your base load is affordable, as well as cheaper in the long run.

The leasing (cloud) people just love people who don't know about costs.

Leasing is always more expensive than buying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012295)

Not if the company doesn't have to pay for a sysadmin anymore...

Re:Leasing is always more expensive than buying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012329)

The company still has to pay a sysadmin, if they don't then who does the CEO fire when the cloud is down?

No matter how much you try (4, Insightful)

Lumpio- (986581) | about 3 months ago | (#47012019)

And no matter how much marketing jargon you spew at people, "the cloud" is still just a bunch of servers. Stop lying.

Cloud is a Scam (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012035)

Unless you need to dynamically scale up and scale down dozens or hundreds of servers on a per-day or per-week basis, cloud servers are a scam. It's wwwayyyy cheaper to lease or co-locate physical servers. And for the low-end (which is most people!), there's still regular VPS.

Just compare the price of running a single cloud image 24/7 for a month to leasing physical hardware. It comes out to roughly the same cost, but you're getting far fewer resources. You could lease a server for the same price and run a bunch of KVM instances on it.

And of course, VPS is still cheaper by a large margin.

The "cloud" premium is money you spend stroking your own ego. Small and medium sized businesses get to pretend that when they need to scale like the really big guys, it'll be easy. But 1) it won't happen, 2) it wouldn't be easy, and 3) why are you throwing all that money away, again?

Obligatory Blackadder (4, Funny)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 3 months ago | (#47012051)

Edmund: Never had anything you doctors didn't try to cure with leeches. A leech on my ear for ear ache, a leech on my bottom for constipation.
Doctor: They're marvellous, aren't they?
Edmund: Well, the bottom one wasn't. I just sat there and squashed it.
Doctor: You know the leech comes to us on the highest authority?
Edmund: Yes. I know that. Dr. Hoffmann of Stuttgart, isn't it?
Doctor: That's right, the great Hoffmann.
Edmund: Owner of the largest leech farm of Europe...

The Cloud and Net Neutrality (3, Insightful)

parlancex (1322105) | about 3 months ago | (#47012061)

There's never been a better time to get into the cloud! Get all your data into your favorites service(s) just in time for your ISP to hold it hostage from your cloud service providers.

Double speek and spin-doctoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012081)

The whole thing is a giant spin-doctored work. As others have pointed out, "Cloud" is just "Someone else server", and " This is a huge opportunity to improve their skill set and to grow in their career and become even more valuable." is a euphemism for "You're fired." (This is often on the form letter for exit interviews)

Immanual Kant in his book Ethics points out a solid test for determining if this is a good idea - take it to the logical extreme and see if it still holds up as a good idea. What's the extreme in this case? That EVERYONE and EVERYTHING uses "Somebody else server" ... then ... who has any servers? No one. Because the server company needs to use somebody else server anyways.

Oh well, good luck with the ad hominem marketing. I'm sure many pointey-haired admins will fall for it.

Cloud-based services company exec shills for cloud (4, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 3 months ago | (#47012099)

...film at 11.

Why would I ever buy into any idea someone is selling who is in the business of selling services based on that same idea? Isn't this just a sales pitch with a smart-ass insult thrown in to gain some kind of attention?

What's old is new (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 3 months ago | (#47012107)

To me, this whole thing seems silly. We had centralized computing "back in the day". The mainframe was The Cloud. The data was stored there, software lived there, we accessed it through dumb terminals that were basically a keyboard and monitor with really long cables. But that "ivory tower" setup was annoying for departments that wanted to have control over their computing resources. So each department got their own servers and smart terminals (computers). Now it's apparently too much work for departments (and entire companies) to maintain their computing resources so we're rolling it all back to the 70s. I guess in a couple decades, people will be complaining about how they're tired of The Cloud deciding what software they can use and there will be a push to bring computing power back to the departments and individual companies.

Re:What's old is new (1)

MrLeap (1014911) | about 3 months ago | (#47012193)

"Manage your own onsite cloud!"
You mean.. a server?
"It's the clouuuuuuud"

Data Ownership (2)

HeyBob! (111243) | about 3 months ago | (#47012133)

If you don't own your server, you don't own your data.

Am i the only one who searched his name on Google? (1)

kunyo (863739) | about 3 months ago | (#47012135)

Maybe i'm completely wrong but i think he's just market making for his company which sells CLOUD phone systems.

The first rule of computer security... (4, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47012145)

Is physical access... which is impossible with cloud services which means they are inherently insecure.

If I don't control the actual machine that has my data on it then I don't control the data.

Talk to a bank... any of them using cloud services? Yes... but with their own cloud with machines they control.

That is how the cloud should be in the corporate world. The company you buy the cloud from wants to sell it as a service. That's great for them but unacceptable for many customers because the customer often must maintain control over the software, the hardware, etc. For various reason... maybe you want reliability. Maybe you want security... there are lots of reasons.

This cloud argument he's making is also self contradictory because the cloud operators themselves own and operate large server farms. So what they're saying is that THEY should have servers but you should not.

This is nonsense.

hugging? how quaint (2)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 3 months ago | (#47012157)

im flat out fucking my server.

take that, cloud geeks.

Re:hugging? how quaint (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#47012279)

im flat out fucking my server.

take that, cloud geeks.

I used to fuck my servers but they don't come with the necessary 8" external drive bays anymore.

"Cloud computing" is shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012191)

"The Cloud" is a fucking scam to start with and anyone relying on it for any business purpose or anything even important is an idiot and is not only throwing their money away, they're handing their data to some shit company that wants to data-mine it and/'or steal it.

Well played... (3, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | about 3 months ago | (#47012195)

Posting someone's stupid slashvertisement for "moving into the cloud" THREE stories away from "Adobe's Cloud Services Down...again" (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/05/15/1429204/adobe-creative-cloud-services-offline-again)

Nicely done!

It very much depends on your business and situatio (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 3 months ago | (#47012197)

Peterson is being kind of silly. Cloud makes very good sense for some applications, in some situations. It's a bad idea in others. When you have very peaky demand, a flood of traffic once in a while, cloud may well make sense. A site with primary live coverage of the Super Bowl is a clear example - it would be silly to buy thousands of servers to use them for just a few hours.

An opposite example is the building I'm in right now. It's an office building full of high-paid workers who use email to communicate with coworkers all day. Due to geography, we have a single-homed internet connection. If our email were out in the cloud, an internet outage (or slowness) might cost $20,000 per hour in lost productivity. We should definitely have our email and AD servers on site.

Of course, where on site servers make sense, you can still apply _some_ "cloud" concepts for high availability. Those should be targeted, though, a specific action for a specific need. It would be silly to just blindly "cloudify" an existing well-designed infrastructure which currently has a pair of high performance database machines using battery backed DDR for insanely fast storage, a pair of file servers with well designed tiered storage, etc.

Own advice (1)

sunking2 (521698) | about 3 months ago | (#47012201)

Maybe he should stop hugging the twinkies.

There's a Bell Curve to ROI (1)

Kagato (116051) | about 3 months ago | (#47012207)

Using cloud deployment tech is good. Even if you intend to keep your servers in-house. But moving everything to cloud isn't always the most cost effective. Large game companies find that cloud bell curve. Some game companies use a bit of a bell curve for gaming back-ends. They start out on the cloud. However, they have enough infrastructure in place already that it makes sense to host the games in-house when they are at the peek. Post peek it becomes much cheaper to put them in an on-demand cloud host.

Other things that effect ROI are HIPPA and PCI. You may still be on the cloud, but you may have to go through a third party that is willing to bond and insurance the security of the setup, even if the end servers are still AWS, Rackspace, etc. That costs some serious money.

Been there, done that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012223)

The cloud sucks. But yeah... don't be a server hugger. Keep selling your "obsolete" but still perfectly capable servers on eBay so I can snatch them up for a song and a dance.

So, the mainframers finally win (1)

Catbeller (118204) | about 3 months ago | (#47012233)

And yup, it means a lot of people are out of jobs. Nope, it doesn't mean they work for the mainframe companies, as they obviously don't require as much staff. And a boon for the NSA, FBI, IRS and other Three Letter Names, as now we are all nicely lined up like humans in a Matrix power tower, oblivious to the complete exposure of our data to any schmuck with power who wants to access it.

Clearly the cloud is nebulous! (1)

Y2K is bogus (7647) | about 3 months ago | (#47012235)

Surely you should switch to the cloud, because the cloud is nebulous! In the cloud there are no servers!

Oh, wait, umm, yeah, uhh, in the cloud all your stuff runs on servers.

Yeah, some companies call a XEN virtual machine on a box with 15 other virtual machines a "cloud" server.

Umm, does your "cloud" support online migration from one server to another server?

Does your cloud provide deterministic performance? Oh, wait, what's that you say?

Fuck You And The Cloud You Rode In On (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#47012243)

Just say NO to the fucking cloud.

Give it Up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012265)

Can't you see the value in this marketing message. It doesn't matter where your data is stored or even if it's legally protected. What matters is whether you avoid being labled!

I was expecting more practical advice... (5, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 3 months ago | (#47012273)

* Hugging a server may block its vents, reducing airflow and operational life.
* When hugging a server, you may inadvertently disconnect important cables.
* Hugging a server may put your clothes—or you—in contact with dangerous high-speed fans.
* While hugging a server, you are likely interfering with the admins who are trying to get actual work done.
* Driving while hugging a server is a hazard and illegal in many states.

How the cloud works (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47012291)

Attention, this is a public service announcement...

The way "The cloud" works.
A Cloud or SASS provider will schedule meetings with your management and give a flashy presentation bragging about their up-time, reliability and how your company will no longer need to maintain software or even have an IT department! They'll even migrate you to their servers FOR FREE! Yay!

You company will sign a 3 year contract and brag about all the savings the project will lead to. It will be fantastic!

You'll begin the migration project and quickly realize that the provider outsourced the conversion project to a random IT team from their "Trusted Partners Network" that consists of 2 people (1 manager, 1 employee) that are clearly located in some other country but refuse to admit which one. Having worked with competent people from other countries before you'll shrug this off as not that big of a deal.

Shortly after that they'll start stalling and delay. You may or may not get finished with the project before your management goes back to the Provider and demands the "Free" migration... only to find out the contract stated something to the effect of "Migration Assistance" and by that, they meant you have to do it with the help of those people on the phone you couldn't understand. Your management will resign itself to just getting it done so they can start saving money and dump it all in your lap.

Liking your job, and knowing that managements on a "Lets save money!" kick you'll do it without complaint. After all, once it's done, its done right?

Unfortunately, once it's done is when the problems will start. Since you did most of the migration work the provider will quickly move to blame the problem entirely on you. You'll start to realize that patching together their garbage product with bubblegum and duct tape might not have been such a good idea. But, you have a good reputation, you logged all the previous issues you'd had, and you eventually win management over and they realize that the product is garbage and you'd better start thinking of long term alternatives. But you're stuck in a 3yr contract so you have time to plan.

Then you get an update from the provider: "In an effort to improve server reliability and security we are deprecating ODBC/SQL connections to the database in 6 months" You'll question this and the provider will come back to you and say "Fear not! We've created our own API! It's great! It even uses our own proprietary version of SQL!!!"

So you'll start reviewing this and find out that their "new" version of SQL differs from the only version in 2 ways: 1. you can't do table joins. 2. you can only retrieve 10,000 rows at a time

You'll take this to management and explain that once this happens, moving your data off their servers will be nearly impossible. Migrating to another product will be very difficult. So your mangement will bring this concern to the provider who will say "If you need help migrating, we have a team that can help you! They only charge $200/hr!" and they'll send you right back to the 2 people that failed in the original migration.

Eventually the products customers will all realize it was a giant scam, and start dumping it. The products parent company will shut down the product, buy a startup that does the exact same thing, re-brand it and start all over again.

Rinse and Repeat.

Ask me how I know this... :-)

I didn't watch the video (1, Insightful)

Zeromous (668365) | about 3 months ago | (#47012301)

...But no one said you couldn't move to a private cloud if there is business value in doing so. Cloud is not a scam, the marketing is. Cloud is not a swiss army knife.

Some people have clouded judgement. (1)

Obscene_CNN (3652201) | about 3 months ago | (#47012307)

Why put critical and confidential information on a medium that you can't be sure is going to be accessible or secure? I have news for people with clouded judgement, The internet is not secure or reliable. Idiots with backhoes and gophers can strike any time crippling your business for days. Then there is the fact that ISPs screw up and I'm sure the could company isn't mistake free either. Then there is the risk of data security. The best way to keep data from being spread all of the net is not to spread it all over the net. Just because this clown can make money off your company doesn't mean its in your best interest.

i have a words for VOIP providers too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47012317)

middle men, parasites, leeches, opportunists

One thing they never mention... (2)

BobMcD (601576) | about 3 months ago | (#47012333)

These cloud guys always forget to mention one glaring problem with their model - they're not adding any new software to the picture.

Everything they have is available to you, Joe Serverhugger, as well.

So in short you're paying someone else to do something you could do yourself, rather like webhosting in the early nineties.

If you really want a cloud, go build one. It isn't even hard. Then you can stack your stuff on your own servers and enjoy your own profits, instead of outsourcing them for no reason.

Dedicated servers are cheaper / faster. (1)

musixman (1713146) | about 3 months ago | (#47012339)

If your company actually has a large amount of web traffic. Or a large backend software system that holds business critical information. The to the cloud chant!, is really stupid.

Its almost never cheaper in my experience to move into the "cloud". Sure, hosting your static files & images on a CDN (Eg cloud) service that makes sense.

Just buy a managed servers from a good hosting company, they will do all the "work" just like in the cloud & you will reduce you bill easily 50% then using cloud services.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>