[Info-vax] Where is EISNER:: and who funds it?

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/21/21 6:38 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> No, I seriously believe all this cloud crap is a really bad idea.

I agree.

IMHO, "the cloud" is /just/ another data center /somewhere/.  I probably 
don't have any physical access to it.  Thus I have to rely on other 
people to do the physical part of the work.  --  But I have to 
administer servers in the cloud just like I have to administer servers 
in my companies on-premise data center.

That's one type of "cloud", namely the (virtual) "system" level. 
Another type of cloud is at the "service" level, a la. outsourcing email 
to someone like Google's Gmail / Microsoft's Office 365.

IMHO "the cloud" is a marketing buzz word.

I will say, that cloud tends to have one very strong advantage, and 
that's business / legal which is decidedly non-technical, in a word 
"contract".  More precisely "contractual obligations".  Businesses can 
hold other businesses accountable for things, meaning that they can sue 
if the other business fails to uphold the contractual obligations. 
That's something that is quite a bit more difficult to do with an employee.

Similarly, "the cloud" provides abstraction for physical problems much 
like renting provides abstractions from property maintenance issues. 
Much like renting a car and swapping for the newer model every 18-24 months.

> Apples and oranges, but anyway.

Not really.

Either you trust that someone does something; sells you safe food / 
hosts your systems or data in a safe way, or you do not.

> They have nothing to gain from poisoning me.

Your repeat business and word of mouth poisoning their reputation seems 
like something to gain from you.

> The cloud providers have a lot to gain by acquiring my data. 
> And access to my wallet.

And yet, safe for a few specific cases, e.g. Gmail, almost all cloud 
providers aren't accessing your data, much less the source of data 
leaks.  Rather it's almost all of the data leaks are from mis-configured 
systems / services located /somewhere/.  And that mis-configuration is 
almost always based on the 1st party (not) doing something (they should 
have).

There is very little difference in posting sensitive data to the website 
document root on a local server verses a cloud provider server.  Someone 
in the company still did a dumb.  Where the server is doesn't matter 
much in this case.

> One of the big difference is that in many cases you really don't 
> have an alternative to the grocery store.  If you live in NYC your 
> not going to have a farm to grow your own.

Buying your food vs growing your food, sure.

But I'll almost guarantee that you have multiple choices as to where you 
buy your food from.  There are probably multiple grocery stores within a 
reasonable commute and almost certainly multiple, if not many, 
restaurants and / or gas stations / vending machines that sell food. 
Admittedly the quality and desirability of the food will likely vary 
SIGNIFICANTLY.  But there are probably many places that you can get 
sustenance in your proximity.

> But  in the case of the cloud, you do have an alternative.  And, it 
> is one you can trust.  Unless you don't trust yourself. :-)

I know a bunch of people that have pretended to be computer people and 
failed absolutely miserably.  Yet hardly any of them will even attempt 
to be a plumber / mechanic / carpenter / doctor / etc.

> I know it is mostly about cost,

Cost is just one aspect.

Convenience is another.

One of the bigger ones that I see people doing is outsourcing their 
email to ... email professionals.  Very similarly to how many small 
businesses outsource their book keeping to CPAs or legal work to 
lawyers.  Nothing is preventing these same businesses from doing their 
own book keeping or representing themselves in court.  Yet they choose 
to outsource.  I wonder why that is?

Another big reason is (perceived) expertise.  As in the outsourced party 
is probably better at doing $THING than doing it in house.

> but just like the constant argument about true cost of TCO I think 
> more people need to consider the true cost of outsourcing and that 
> includes the risk. Much more today than in the past.

Cost is usually likened to fiduciary currency.  But cost can be many 
different things; time, corruption (data integrity), privacy (data 
confidentiality).



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die