Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2242 > unrolled thread

Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-03 20:45 +0000
    Re:Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-05 10:29 +0000
      Re: Re:Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-04-05 17:04 +0000
      Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2014-04-05 11:35 -0700
      Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-04-05 19:47 +0100
        Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-04-06 01:31 -0300
          Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-06 18:49 +0000
            Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@hushmail.com> - 2014-04-06 14:14 -0500
              Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future "G. Paul Ziemba" <paul+usenet@w6yx.stanford.edu> - 2014-04-07 01:18 +0000
              Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-04-07 09:06 +0000
            Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-04-06 22:35 +0000
              Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-04-07 00:18 +0100
        Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-04-06 22:04 +0200
          Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-04-06 22:18 +0100
    Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 23:25 +0100
      Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-04-08 10:40 +0100
        Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-08 17:48 +0000
          Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-04-08 19:11 +0100
            Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-04-08 19:34 +0000
            Re: Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-04-09 17:56 +0000

#2242 — Salesforce.com guy says servers are done, cloud is future

From the «under ur bridge, trolln ur newzgroop» department:
Title: RIP, the server. It’s time to breathe the air of cloud connection
Author: Peter Coffee, Salesforce.com
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:30:09 -0400
Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/KXN2cls8pGU/
Podcast Download URL: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/453612803.jpg

Sometimes, it’s hard to tell when a novelty becomes a trend or a trend
becomes the new normal. This is not one of those times. The era of the
on-premise server is clearly behind us, with the cusp of change literally on
our calendars.

In just the past week, we’ve seen significant server-shedding events and
announcements from Google[1], Box[2] and Amazon Web Services[3]. Even 
Microsoft[4] finally seems to get it: enabling people to work from anywhere
is more important than keeping them leashed to a platform going nowhere.

This is no longer just a matter of doing things a little more cheaply, or a
little less painfully, by doing them in the cloud. It’s bigger than that.
Today, running your business on private servers is on the same level of odd
behavior as carrying scuba tanks to provide a private air supply. Does it
give you more control of exactly what you breathe? Certainly, but can you
make a business case for all that excess weight? Going forward, the notion of
owning your own server farm is looking equally eccentric.

Servers were a cost-effective stopgap during the period when processing power
got cheaper, much more quickly than our planet-wide networks became pervasive
and interoperable. The 1971 debut of Intel’s first microprocessor, the 4004,
came three years before the word “internet” was introduced; the birth of the
modern Internet’s TCP/IP protocol was still eleven years away, and that was
seven cycles of Moore’s-Law processor improvement. Having your own room full
of servers made sense, like having your own air dome on the surface of Mars:
inside our little habitats, we could have pockets of breathable “air” of
computation and connectivity, but outside it was still a near-vacuum.

As early settlers on Planet Computing, we all got pretty skilled at charging
up our air tanks and patching our space suits for those dangerous walks
across the landscape from one dome of air to the next. Remember your brief
episodes of “going online” with your dial-up modem? Over time, though, we’ve
made the atmosphere of connectitvity and shared processing power much more
breathable. We’ve even leapfrogged ourselves: as one CEO recently asked his
facility manager, “We spent how much to put state-of-the-art Wi-Fi in this
building? And I get more bandwidth on my 4G LTE smartphone?”

[image 6][5]

We’ve also changed, in a fundamental way, the kinds of workload that we
perform. When business computing was automation of internal record
management, data originated at a predictable pace; analysis was needed on a
regular schedule. Owning a battery of servers that can handle today’s world
of bursty, externally driven data would be like carrying tanks that are big
enough to get you through a marathon run at a sprinter’s speed. Even if you
can afford the cost, you rightly dread the unproductive burden.

So far, furthermore, we’ve only talked about gross computational capacity. We
haven’t even begun to discuss the more complicated tasks that we want to be
able to perform, like real-time collaboration. When you own your own servers,
collaboration requires you to simulate the sharing that a cloud makes
completely straightforward. If something happens on Department X servers in
one building, and something related happens on Department Y servers
elsewhere, it takes a ziggurat of middleware to make it look as if a shared
process is taking place in a shared space. This is more expensive, more
failure prone, and can’t possibly be more effective than the real thing: an
actual, single, concurrently accessible work product on the shared foundation
of a cloud service provider. That could be any of several reputable
innovators, but almost certainly will not be someone who’d rather sell you
software to run on your own machines.

Imagine a day when colonists on Planet Computing wake up to the news that the
air is now dense enough to breathe. Would some people say, “I don’t know: I’m
not sure I trust it”? Would some people strap on their air tanks, out of
long-established habit, and say, “You go ahead and try breathing that stuff.
I’m sticking with what I know”? Of course. Every new capability has its late
adopters.

But will those resolute tank-breathers be late to work, tired by their load,
and preoccupied with watching their air gauges while others are sprinting
ahead? Absolutely–and that’s what we see today in business, education,
government, health care and every other institution. Those who shed the dead
weight first get more done, sooner and better and at less cost.

We live on a fully connected planet, surrounded by tasks that increasingly
demand immediate scalable access to rich processing power–mediated by
ubiquitous networks. No new company starts out with a budget line item of
“buy servers”; even in the largest enterprises, few today would want to risk
joining the hall of shame for managers who build over-budget and
under-performing server farms, instead of marshalling modern cloud services
to solve the problem.

RIP, the server. You were what we needed when there was no alternative.
You’re now a relic of a time that’s almost unrecognizable today; you
represent a cost that’s unaffordable, and unreasonable, for all future time
to come.

Peter Coffee is VP for strategic research at salesforce.com, where he serves
as a liaison with the IT and business community to define the opportunity and
clarify customers’ requirements on the company’s evolving Salesforce1
Platform.

Feature image from Thinkstock/wavebreakmedialtd[7]. Cloud image from
Thinkstock/buchachon[8].
[image 9]

[image 11][10]

Related research and analysis from Gigaom Research:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial[12].

* 12 tech leaders’ resolutions for 2012[13]
* The promise of SDNs in the enterprise[14]
* Continuous delivery and the world of devops[15]

[image 17][16][image 18]

Links:
[1]: http://gigaom.com/2014/03/25/and-bam-google-cuts-on-demand-prices-by-a-third-demos-live-migration-for-its-cloud/ (link)
[2]: http://www.boxdev2014.com/ (link)
[3]: http://gigaom.com/2014/03/26/and-here-are-those-aws-price-cuts-we-talked-about/ (link)
[4]: http://gigaom.com/2014/03/27/office-for-ipad-available-today/ (link)
[5]: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/453612803.jpg (link)
[6]: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/453612803.jpg?w=708 (image)
[7]: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-illustration-data-servers-resting-on-clouds-in-blue/172588046 (link)
[8]: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-cloud-computing-networking-concept/453612803 (link)
[9]: http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=gigaom.com&blog=14960843&post=828910&subd=gigaom2&ref=&feed=1 (image)
[10]: http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?iu=/1008864/Gigaom_RSS_300x250&sz=300x250&c=915030 (link)
[11]: http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ad?iu=/1008864/Gigaom_RSS_300x250&sz=300x250&c=915030 (image)
[12]: http://research.gigaom.com/?utm_source=cloudutm_medium=editorial&utm_campaign=auto3&utm_term=828910+rip-the-server-its-time-to-breathe-the-air-of-cloud-connection&utm_content=gigaguest (link)
[13]: http://research.gigaom.com/report/12-tech-leaders-resolutions-for-2012/?utm_source=cloudutm_medium=editorial&utm_campaign=auto3&utm_term=828910+rip-the-server-its-time-to-breathe-the-air-of-cloud-connection&utm_content=gigaguest (link)
[14]: http://pro.gigaom.com/2012/11/an-overview-of-the-software-defined-networking-market/?utm_source=cloudutm_medium=editorial&utm_campaign=auto3&utm_term=828910+rip-the-server-its-time-to-breathe-the-air-of-cloud-connection&utm_content=gigaguest (link)
[15]: http://pro.gigaom.com/2012/10/continuous-delivery-and-the-world-of-devops/?utm_source=cloudutm_medium=editorial&utm_campaign=auto3&utm_term=828910+rip-the-server-its-time-to-breathe-the-air-of-cloud-connection&utm_content=gigaguest (link)
[16]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OmMalik?a=KXN2cls8pGU:ZQErf-p6wow:yIl2AUoC8zA (link)
[17]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/OmMalik?d=yIl2AUoC8zA (image)
[18]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/OmMalik/~4/KXN2cls8pGU (image)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2263

I had a look at the article, and if you can choke your way past
 the breathless marketing-speak, you'll see that by server he's
 referring to dedicated, in-house servers being managed by your
 own staff.  He's advocating outsourcing your server
 team.

I love the delicious irony of hearing this guy say you replace
 your servers with cloud, as though "cloud" weren't just marketing
 whitewash for a technology that is basically just
 servers.

I will also love the delicious irony of this guy being unable to
 do his job because his cloud provider has botched their
 configuration, flubbed a backup, or toasted its DNS, taking down
 his entire system.

I know of an office that just standardized on Microsoft O365
 (cloud office) and has had nothing but trouble since.  They've
 had log-in errors, certificate conflicts, and many-hour system
 downtime.  Worse, they can't just deal with it on their own
 anymore.  Every issue requires a call to Microsoft Support, who
 struggles to get stuff fixed.

I can appreciate some implementations of SaaS.  I'm using
 Fruux.com for hosted calendar and addressbook (cardDAV, calDAV)
 with some success, but even that I'll be able to host locally
 when I learn a bit more.  But outsourcing your entire business to
 some hosted solution?  I hope the competition does that so I can
 crush them when their cloud starts to rain.  Bwa ha ha ha
 ha.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2267

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> I love the delicious irony of hearing this guy say you replace your
>  servers with cloud, as though "cloud" weren't just marketing
>  whitewash for a technology that is basically just servers.

This is because, for far too large a majority of the population, you
can take some "tech", give it a new name (identical tech, just name
change) and sell it to those folks over and over and over again and
again, because they are so tech-illiterate they are unable recognize
they are being sold the same thing with a new name year after year.

Because the name changed, they think they just bought something new and
different.

It is the modern equivalent of the "There's a sucker born every minute"
quote often attributed to PT Barnum, but maybe not actually said by
him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2268

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 10:29:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00) in comp.misc, RS Wood
<rsw@therandymon.com> wrote,
>I will also love the delicious irony of this guy being unable to
> do his job because his cloud provider has botched their
> configuration, flubbed a backup, or toasted its DNS, taking down
> his entire system.

Speaking of which, have the Western Digital cloud users got access
to their data restored yet?
http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/04/04/0142216

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2269

On 05/04/14 11:29, RS Wood wrote:
> I had a look at the article, and if you can choke your way past
>   the breathless marketing-speak, you'll see that by server he's
>   referring to dedicated, in-house servers being managed by your
>   own staff.  He's advocating outsourcing your server
>   team.

A while back I compared my ESXi cluster at work with buying the nodes 
from Linode on demand.

We were cheaper per guest VM, even allowing for my time and mine have 
better disk performance (I just did a study of that for other purposes).

Amazon's offerings do not meet our requirements even if they might be 
cheaper.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2272

Actually, we're pretty used to having everything "in the cloud"
already.  Y'all remeber those diagrams of 25 years ago explaining the
internet: Your desktop box -> some local host -> puffy little,
impenetrable cloud -> some remote host.  In the cloud means that your
critical services or data are in that little impenetrable cloud, out
of reach, out of sight and mind.

But for most people, their cell phone service, banking services, data
services are all like that.  See all the stories of hanging on the
phone for hours waiting for, then talking to, cookie-cutter droids,
being passed from one to another, being handled in the end however the
computer determines regardless of what those droids may have said.
That's the cloud. That's the UI for The Cloud.  Do you want your life
there? Or your little business?

I used to be able to drive to my ISP's NOC in 10 minutes and talk to
the sys admin. After the dad demise of the founder and a merger, I now
have to drive an hour an a half but I can *still* walk into the place
where my email and other net stuff is being handled on short notice
and talk to the resident demigod.

I get horripiliations at the thought of having to deal with one of the
megacorp ISPs should my ISP run aground or be scuttled by the big
competitors. 


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2273

On 2014-04-06, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> I used to be able to drive to my ISP's NOC in 10 minutes and talk to
> the sys admin. After the dad demise of the founder and a merger, I now
> have to drive an hour an a half but I can *still* walk into the place
> where my email and other net stuff is being handled on short notice
> and talk to the resident demigod.
>
> I get horripiliations at the thought of having to deal with one of the
> megacorp ISPs should my ISP run aground or be scuttled by the big
> competitors. 
>

Yeah, one thing broadband did: back when everyone was getting connected
via dialup there were many, many small ISPs serving small localities.
Broadband meant the only ones able to offer the faster speeds were
telcos and cable providers, and the mom-and-pop ISPs disappeared.  In
the USA at least we handed the cable and telephone companies an
oligopoly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2280

On 2014-04-06, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-04-06, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>> I used to be able to drive to my ISP's NOC in 10 minutes and talk to
>> the sys admin. After the dad demise of the founder and a merger, I now
>> have to drive an hour an a half but I can *still* walk into the place
>> where my email and other net stuff is being handled on short notice
>> and talk to the resident demigod.
>>
>> I get horripiliations at the thought of having to deal with one of the
>> megacorp ISPs should my ISP run aground or be scuttled by the big
>> competitors. 
>>
>
> Yeah, one thing broadband did: back when everyone was getting connected
> via dialup there were many, many small ISPs serving small localities.
> Broadband meant the only ones able to offer the faster speeds were
> telcos and cable providers, and the mom-and-pop ISPs disappeared.  In
> the USA at least we handed the cable and telephone companies an
> oligopoly.

I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area. On my 300 Baud modem I had
subscription to CompuServe first. Next I got into BBSes of the era. That
was a lot of fun and I still miss the experience of those early BBSes. 

Then QuantumLink hit for the Commodore 64. Again, that was a lot of fun.
Still it was a modem world, mostly made up of tons and tons of
independent young adults running their own BBS on their own PCs on
standard phone lines, or you got into mass communication vis Quantum or
CompuServe. 

After we got the 9600 & 14.4k modems the modern browser hit and slip/ppp
services started to pop up everywhere. First I got ISDN and then ADSL.
My ADSL was 1.54 Mb. I remember being wowed by being able to play a song
from over the web rather than playing it from my local hard drive. 

That slip/ppp connection I first had was from slip.net. And of course I
remember having an account with Netcom. They were big. Earthlink was big
too. Of course AOL was insanely huge and popular. Take your pick they
were everywhere. 

Where I am there are still some choices. But I really hate where this is
going. The Cable TV operators want a lot of money. I have a nice
connection but I don't subscribe to cable tv, just the Internet. With
cable TV it is well past $150 where I am. And I just can't help but
think about how awesome it was when it was just a bunch of BBSes and a
$12.95 phone line. At 14.4k and just the text of a BBS it was just fine.
Very fast for what was needed at the time. I had two lines. One for
voice and one for data. I paid a little more than $30. 

If you add your smartphone bill and your home based broadband bill, how
much do you now spend on Internet related access? I spend more than $250
a month easy. 
-- 
Marek Novotny
A member of the Linux Foundation
http://www.linuxfoundation.org
git with the program

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2301

Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@hushmail.com> writes:

>If you add your smartphone bill and your home based broadband bill, how
>much do you now spend on Internet related access? I spend more than $250
>a month easy. 

I don't use "mobile data" on my phone. That could change in the
future, but at the moment I am surrounded by computers all day
long so don't need yet another device.

Monthly (myself + spouse):
$12 Pageplus (Verizon MVNO)
$24 Ting (Sprint MVNO)
$58 Sonic DSL (incl 4 static IP addresses)
$64 Pacbell (now called ATT) for 2 POTS lines

Sonic now offers a bundled POTS+DSL for $46 or so, and it's another
$10 for a few static IP addresses. So eventually I'll roll over one
of the ATT POTS lines to Sonic and save about $34, for a total of $124.

Never had cable TV. I noted since the 1970's as cable operators
rolled out around the country that they delivered generally poor
customer service and I resolved to avoid them. Around 2005 or so
I installed the Fred Rogers Memorial Bowtie Array Antenna and an
ATSC capture card, and it's been happy sailing since then.
-- 
G. Paul Ziemba
FreeBSD unix:
 6:16PM  up 70 days, 19:15, 15 users, load averages: 1.18, 1.51, 1.55

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2304

On 2014-04-06, Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@hushmail.com> wrote:

> If you add your smartphone bill and your home based broadband bill, how
> much do you now spend on Internet related access? I spend more than $250
> a month easy. 

Ouch.

I spend £25/mth on broadband (and I pay extra to get access to a UK
based service where you can actually talk to the geeks - Andrews & Arnold)
and £7/mth on smartphone service = £32 ~= $48. And I think that's robbery.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 24th day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime;
 the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out
                 automatically and without pity.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2296

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-04-06, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> > I used to be able to drive to my ISP's NOC in 10 minutes and talk
> > to the sys admin. After the dad demise of the founder and a merger,
> > I now have to drive an hour an a half but I can *still* walk into
> > the place where my email and other net stuff is being handled on
> > short notice and talk to the resident demigod.
> >
> > I get horripiliations at the thought of having to deal with one of
> > the megacorp ISPs should my ISP run aground or be scuttled by the
> > big competitors.
> >

> Yeah, one thing broadband did: back when everyone was getting
> connected via dialup there were many, many small ISPs serving small
> localities. Broadband meant the only ones able to offer the faster
> speeds were telcos and cable providers, and the mom-and-pop ISPs
> disappeared.  In the USA at least we handed the cable and telephone
> companies an oligopoly.

We also had true competition at that time.

Over dialup it was that anyone could be an ISP, they just needed a
bunch of phone lines and a modem bank.

Over DSL it was that the phone co. had to lease them the copper pair at
non-discriminatory prices, so we also had real competition in DSL
broadband.

With both dialup, and DSL, the price per month for service began high,
and quickly fell low due to the competition.

Then the FCC was duped into changing the rules for fiber/cable such
that the owners of the fiber/cable didn't have to lease it to
competitiors at non-discriminatory prices.  And what do we have now? 
Many folks have only one provider (monopoly) or at most two.  Two which
do not compete on price at all, and only barely compete on "features".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2298

On 06/04/14 23:35, Rich wrote:

> Then the FCC was duped into changing the rules for fiber/cable such
> that the owners of the fiber/cable didn't have to lease it to
> competitiors at non-discriminatory prices.  And what do we have now?
> Many folks have only one provider (monopoly) or at most two.  Two which
> do not compete on price at all, and only barely compete on "features".
>

Rather the opposite to Britain where BT has most of the copper and had 
most of the local loop and backhaul.

No-one bar a couple of cable TV companies can compete with the copper, 
but the government is encouraging (by force) LLU - or Local Loop 
Unbundling which allows other companies access to the telephone exchanges.

BT have also had a kick from the government about FTTC (fibre to the 
[street] cabinet). In fact it's going in here and I live in a 1000-odd 
household village where the nearest big town is about 10 miles away - so 
I feel pretty lucky. We're rural, but south England is dense, so even 
"rural" is not totally in the middle of nowhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2288

Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes:
> A while back I compared my ESXi cluster at work with buying the nodes
> from Linode on demand.  We were cheaper per guest VM [...]  Amazon's
> offerings do not meet our requirements even if they might be cheaper.

I remember an article on this subject from an MMO company (Blizzard?  I
forget) a couple of years ago.  The gist of it was, they had their own
servers for the sustained load and used Amazon EC2 instances to absorb
peaks, e.g. when they launched a new expansion pack.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2295

On 06/04/14 21:04, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes:
>> A while back I compared my ESXi cluster at work with buying the nodes
>> from Linode on demand.  We were cheaper per guest VM [...]  Amazon's
>> offerings do not meet our requirements even if they might be cheaper.
>
> I remember an article on this subject from an MMO company (Blizzard?  I
> forget) a couple of years ago.  The gist of it was, they had their own
> servers for the sustained load and used Amazon EC2 instances to absorb
> peaks, e.g. when they launched a new expansion pack.
>
> DES
>

That makes far more sense.

The reason Amazon are no good for us is *every* server is individually 
important. Amazon EC2 have no "console" to the guest. Linode and ESX do.

Occasionally I need the console to fix problems when RDP (win) or sshd 
go away.

I'm not going to prat about attaching vdisks to recovery VMs :)

But EC2 would be *very* good for test, dev or "lots more of the same" 
scenarios. Assuming you do not need IPv6 (unless that's changed recently).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2305

RS Wood wrote:
>  From the «under ur bridge, trolln ur newzgroop» department:
> Title: RIP, the server. It’s time to breathe the air of cloud connection
> Author: Peter Coffee, Salesforce.com
> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:30:09 -0400
> Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/KXN2cls8pGU/
> Podcast Download URL: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/453612803.jpg
>
> Sometimes, it’s hard to tell when a novelty becomes a trend or a trend
> becomes the new normal. This is not one of those times. The era of the
> on-premise server is clearly behind us, with the cusp of change literally on
> our calendars.

So, what does that mean then, "The era of the on-premise server is 
clearly behind us, with the cusp of change literally on our calendars"?


-- 
It may be that Nam's radical innovation is proposing an inverse
to the stipulation operation, "destipulation" or "vaguification".
If one has stipulated something which leads to undesirable
consequences, one just destipulates it. -- Jim Burns, April 7, 2014

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2306

On 07/04/14 23:25, Peter Percival wrote:
> RS Wood wrote:
>>  From the «under ur bridge, trolln ur newzgroop» department:
>> Title: RIP, the server. It’s time to breathe the air of cloud connection
>> Author: Peter Coffee, Salesforce.com
>> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:30:09 -0400
>> Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/KXN2cls8pGU/
>> Podcast Download URL:
>> http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/453612803.jpg
>>
>> Sometimes, it’s hard to tell when a novelty becomes a trend or a trend
>> becomes the new normal. This is not one of those times. The era of the
>> on-premise server is clearly behind us, with the cusp of change
>> literally on
>> our calendars.
>
> So, what does that mean then, "The era of the on-premise server is
> clearly behind us, with the cusp of change literally on our calendars"?

For about 5 minutes.

The "cloud" is a fad word of the moment.

There have always been timeshare services since the dawn of computing 
and this is just a modern form of the same, perhaps made more 
universally usable by IP networks and the Internet.

However, between various "cloud" disasters recently plus Edward Snowdon, 
I think a lot of businesses are looking very hard at not using the cloud.

For example, I work for a british university. Use of Dropbox is 
specifically banned - because some parts of the university work with 
medical data (therefore highly confidential patient records).

On the other hand, we use Office365 for our email - go figure!

At home, I use Google Calendar - unlikely to "go away" and we do not 
have anything hugely sensitive in there.

I run my own mailserver because I am NOT having that scanned by Google.

I use Google Drive for only a few things and run my own fileserver for 
everything else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2310

On 2014-04-08, Tim Watts wrote:
> At home, I use Google Calendar - unlikely to "go away" and we do not 
> have anything hugely sensitive in there.
>
> I run my own mailserver because I am NOT having that scanned by Google.
>
> I use Google Drive for only a few things and run my own fileserver for 
> everything else.

I host my own fileservers and websites (small scale personal stuff).
I've played around with setting up my own mailserver a few times,
but have either had my ISP blocking port 25, or couldn't get google
to recognize my mail as legitimate.  The last one I set up can send
mail to my gmail account, but can't even reach the spam folder of
any other gmail accounts I've tried.

So for the time being, I'm stuck using gmail's servers for email,
then syncing it with my servers and reading it here with offlineimap
and mutt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2311

On 08/04/14 18:48, Randy Westlund wrote:
> On 2014-04-08, Tim Watts wrote:
>> At home, I use Google Calendar - unlikely to "go away" and we do not
>> have anything hugely sensitive in there.
>>
>> I run my own mailserver because I am NOT having that scanned by Google.
>>
>> I use Google Drive for only a few things and run my own fileserver for
>> everything else.
>
> I host my own fileservers and websites (small scale personal stuff).
> I've played around with setting up my own mailserver a few times,
> but have either had my ISP blocking port 25, or couldn't get google
> to recognize my mail as legitimate.  The last one I set up can send
> mail to my gmail account, but can't even reach the spam folder of
> any other gmail accounts I've tried.
>
> So for the time being, I'm stuck using gmail's servers for email,
> then syncing it with my servers and reading it here with offlineimap
> and mutt.
>

You need a decent ISP and having a block of 8 static IPs helps which 
tends to mean the pool has not been pooped in by regular "dial up" users.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2312

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 19:11:07 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

> On 08/04/14 18:48, Randy Westlund wrote:
>> On 2014-04-08, Tim Watts wrote:
>>> At home, I use Google Calendar - unlikely to "go away" and we do not
>>> have anything hugely sensitive in there.
>>>
>>> I run my own mailserver because I am NOT having that scanned by
>>> Google.
>>>
>>> I use Google Drive for only a few things and run my own fileserver for
>>> everything else.
>>
>> I host my own fileservers and websites (small scale personal stuff).
>> I've played around with setting up my own mailserver a few times, but
>> have either had my ISP blocking port 25, or couldn't get google to
>> recognize my mail as legitimate.  The last one I set up can send mail
>> to my gmail account, but can't even reach the spam folder of any other
>> gmail accounts I've tried.
>>
>> So for the time being, I'm stuck using gmail's servers for email, then
>> syncing it with my servers and reading it here with offlineimap and
>> mutt.
>>
>>
> You need a decent ISP and having a block of 8 static IPs helps which
> tends to mean the pool has not been pooped in by regular "dial up"
> users.

+1. Same decent ISP! I run mailservers with no problem.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2328

In article <rmqd1b-587.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
Tim Watts  <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>On 08/04/14 18:48, Randy Westlund wrote:
>> I've played around with setting up my own mailserver a few times,
>> but have either had my ISP blocking port 25, or couldn't get google
>> to recognize my mail as legitimate.  The last one I set up can send
>> mail to my gmail account, but can't even reach the spam folder of
>> any other gmail accounts I've tried.
>>
>> So for the time being, I'm stuck using gmail's servers for email,
>> then syncing it with my servers and reading it here with offlineimap
>> and mutt.
>>
>
>You need a decent ISP and having a block of 8 static IPs helps which 
>tends to mean the pool has not been pooped in by regular "dial up" users.

I used to run my mail/web server on a box at home connected to
business-grade cable-modem service.  When I found I could get much faster
residental-grade service and a VPS for a lower combined cost, I migrated to
that and have run things that way ever since (think I'm on my third or
fourth VPS provider now, but everything's been migrated from one host to the
next).

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web