You know, that's what I like about our conversations. Your posts always prompt me to answer some point or another (or several), as apparently mine do you. That's a good thing! :mrgreen:
Yogi wrote:It's a chicken and egg type question. Did The Cloud precede the need for it, or did people's changing computer usage bring on The Cloud? It's hard to say what came first, but both are happening right now.
Really, as you have previously described it, I think The Cloud preceded itself. Only the name was changed to protect the innocent(?). :lol:
There has been on-line storage and "apps" for years. On-line email accounts and "clients" are a prime example. Instead of having an email client installed on your hard drive and downloading and storing your emails there, it's all done and stored on-line. That was around for years, way
before the concept of "The Cloud" and its possible uses.
Yogi wrote:As is the nature of all clouds the Internet is nebulous and ill-defined.
You can say that again! As a matter of fact, you can say it numerous times, each with reference to a different aspect!
Yogi wrote:The attraction to it now is the profit motive, thanks to my hero(?) Steve Jobs. He showed how to use change to the financial advantage of a corporation.
Oh, I think I can safely say the "profit motive" attraction to the Internet far preceded Steve Job's pointing it out! We've been able to purchase and download "apps" over the Internet...even "run" them...for many years now. The only thing that's changed is the methodology, really.
Yogi wrote:Don't misunderstand what is happening in The Cloud. The concept of buying your applications and even your OS from the Ap Store is aimed at those folks who don't have time for anything more than a Facebook world. That doesn't mean you can't custom build your own OS, manage your own personal LAN, or run last century's software. In fact some people say the desktop is coming back - not that I thought it ever left. Where you store your personal data will never change. The Cloud is and will be an option and not a venue forced upon everyone who uses a computer. Think about it. Where are all those cloud servers saving THEIR backups. :grin:
I was going to edit the above for brevity, but it all bears remaining as is. You made a very astute statement.
No, I understand the concept very well. I realize that not everyone has the time, desire, or (especially) the ability for such a "hobby," but in this day and age, people want (and need!
) access to the information and services available. More and more, it's getting so that some of these services and information are available only
from that source, unless they want to jump through hoops to get it.
The ability...you don't know how many times I've read help requests on various forums and thought, "Some people shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer!"
I've had friends who just can't understand why they have to take their computer to their Tech almost monthly
and pay to have Malware removed, when most of their usage is viewing pr0n. I want to tell them to get a magazine and stuff it under their mattress,
but it would do no good and just piss them off at me (and sometimes I wonder whether that would be such a bad thing). :doh:
No, Internet access is quickly becoming required. Nice for the profiteers, and yes, (arguably) good for everyone. One no longer need drive to the store to find and purchase each and every little thing; go to the library and pour over obscure and esoteric tomes searching for some obscure bit of (technical) information; pay your bills or do your banking via paper and the ever-so-"reliable" snail mail service. In fact, in many cases it's becoming (being made?) increasingly difficult to do so.
Yogi wrote:That is the beauty of the Microsoft's system of OS's. You know what is coming because you have to buy it with hard currency. That forces you to be aware of what you are putting your money into. The Ubuntu organization simply published it's six month distro (now is that an update or an upgrade?) and didn't feel a need to explain much. I can understand that. The Ubuntu development community is a bunch of (in a very good sense) hackers not businessmen.
Oh, I don't know. While the devs, etc. may not be good businessmen, Canonical is a business, and I'm sure they have businessmen on their staff that couldn't hack their way out of a wet paper bag. They are
in business; they do
make money; they do
offer professional services to corporate users of their products.
And no, most people don't become aware of what they are putting their money into. They buy a computer with Windows pre-installed. They have no concept of what their money goes for. All they do is buy a computer, take it home, hook it up (or in many cases, have
it hooked up), and expect it to work.
They could have Linux pre-installed and they would no more know the difference if it bit them. Remember the computers some years back with Lindows (since become Linspire) pre-installed? As long as it's officially supported and they can take it somewhere and have the work done, the (uneducated) end user could care less
what OS is installed.
BTW, a six month distro is a release. Updates are done within a release. When you upgrade, it's to a new release...a new "cutsey name," like XP or Vista. :mrgreen:
Yogi wrote:I purchased Vista and the very expensive tower I put it in with the intent of making it a long term investment. I was not going to succumb to Microsoft's planed obsolescence business plan and replace my OS every few years. But then the Redmond management team changed the direction of the company...I bit the bullet and paid the market price for the full install version of their high end product. Hopefully that will last me a dozen years or more as did Win98.
Thing is, at some point Win7 will no longer be supported. No more security updates, let alone others, same as with W98. As the Internet (and malware) progresses, what you have will be increasingly left behind. With the browsers available to run on W98, there will be less and less content you're able to access due to changes in content delivery formats (HTML5, anyone?).
The same will happen with Win7, and that may happen quicker than you expect at the rate it's changing. I know this...you told me all about the changes! :mrgreen:
Yogi wrote:...(T)he Linux people can't keep their act together for six months, much less six (or twelve) years. I don't know where I'm going next, but I have at least ten more years to think it over. Maybe some yet to be born distro of Linux will emerge out of the perpetual beta phase by then. Who knows? For now it's Windows for my mainstream computing. I don't see a compelling reason to change at this point.
My use of GNU/Linux (I should really call it what it is...Linux is the kernel; GNU is the Operating System) is due more to my "experimenting" nature more than anything else. Yes, I wanted to get away from (the high-priced, low choice, frustrating) Windows, but that wasn't the primary concern in my decision.
I've experimented with many different OSes over the years. Even back when DOS was "it," I experimented with several different versions of Amiga DOS. I've gone through OS/2, BeOS (back when it was a "complete" desktop OS), Linux (early days, as I mentioned above), along with nearly every version of Windows, excluding the early "NTs" and Windows versions before Windows 3.0 (I have an old laptop that came with 3.0 installed).
Linux distros that don't put out a new release at the drop of a hat. OpenSUSE and especially Slackware come to mind. Like everything else, there are those who complain about that, and I can understand their point in a way. It's hard to stay up with the changes without the ability to stay up with their evolution.
Then there are other models of release, such as the "rolling release" concept. If you've read about Mint Debian
, they use this model. One of the advantages of it is, you install the OS once, and never have to reinstall again. Every software and OS upgrade is slowly rolled into your installation. It's similar to the BSD "tree" concept. I don't know...you might want to check that out.
However, if you see no compelling reason, then there probably isn't one. The choice is the user's. Linux is interesting, it's useful to me, and I see no reason at this point to switch back. I'm very nearly completely immersed in it now, and Windows is increasingly difficult and frustrating for me to both use and maintain.
Besides, it takes too blasted long to boot up and shut down!
My fingers have become sensitive to all the tapping on the table, and my hourglass has long since run out of sand. :lol: