Jumping From Computer To Computer 474
Roland Piquepaille writes "Imagine a world where computers become so ubiquitous that the idea of carrying a laptop will almost be laughable, a world where any computer could be your computer! According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, this is the goal of Intel Research Pittsburgh's Internet Suspend/Resume (ISR) project, a project that may one day let your work jump from computer to computer without interruption by using the Internet, distributed file systems, and virtual machines. When the non-proprietary technology becomes available, a user will suspend a task on the computer he's working on, and resume this work using another computer in another part of a city or several thousands of miles away. The second system will look identical to the first one, with the same files and applications opened. This technology would also ease OS upgrades or eliminate the pain coming from a hard disk failure. The project has even a feature named Rollback which would permit to go back in time, eliminating these pesky viruses. A pilot test will start this fall, so don't expect to be able to use ISR for a while. You'll find more details and references in this overview."
I love this quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite their outward sameness, most computers are so personalized with desktop preferences and software that borrowing someone's computer can seem as creepy as borrowing their underwear.
Does this mean that borrowing someone else's underwear could be made less creepy if it were made to look like your own? Will we laugh at people someday for actually travelling with luggage- Ha ha, fools- I just use the underwear that is laying around at the hotel?!
Seriously, who would use this? How long will it be after introduction before someone comes up with a way to hack/hijack an Internet Suspend/Resume account and get all of your data?
i already do this... (Score:1, Insightful)
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm.. Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back to the Future (Score:3, Insightful)
Rollback? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Umm.. Security? (Score:4, Insightful)
To simply "go back in time"... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Just my two off-topic eurocents).
Interesting concept (Score:5, Insightful)
This would also make it very difficult for any non-standard OS (Linux, MacOS, BSD) to get a foothold once it gets going - I'd guess you would be pretty limited in just what you could have loaded in order to use this system.
I dunno. It's an interesting concept, but I have my doubts. I actually like managing my own systems. I'd rather have the control than hand it over to a company who's going to do upgrades without my knowledge.
System Restore Anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
Interesting, but incomplete (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Most people have lots of data on their computers (here, I define a 'lot' as over 10 GB of data). Even if they were only using say 200 mb of data, at today's broadband transfer speeds, that could take 10 minutes to transfer, or much more if they can only get dialup speeds.
2. As I said, most people have lots of stuff on their HD's (I for one always have 80-100GB on my HD). Where are they going to get the space to store 100GB(or more) for every person who is going to use the system? It will cost them a fortune just in the cost of disk space, not to mention bandwidth to transfer the running state of all these systems.
3. It might seem obvious to some, but how are they planning on getting the system into widespread use? If you haven't noticed, people tend to resist change, and even if they do get it into wide use, not everyone will use it, so there will still be computers you cant just walk up to and use.
4. If it costs money to use the service, I guarantee it will take a lot longer to get into widespread use. The only place I can really see it being worth the cost would be in a business setting, where you could sit down at any computer and it would be like you are sitting at your own desk.
In conclusion, good idea, but it needs major work, and there are many major major problems to be solved before it "revolutionizes" computing
GoToMyPC?? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Imagine that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keyloggers (Score:3, Insightful)
If a computer is not my own computer i simply don't trust it.
Ah, but you don't need to trust it in order to use it [shmoo.com]!
Re:I love this quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your shell account can also be hacked. But that doesn't stop people from using Screen [gnu.org], now does it?
Instead of laughing about how noone will use this, try to come up with how you could make it secure and usable instead.
Idiotic technofantasy (Score:3, Insightful)
For example: "If a user's computer becomes infected, she could use the Rollback feature to go back to an arbitrary point in time prior to the infection and resume work there, deleting the subsequent work -- and the virus."
There are several reasons why that statement is idiotic.
1) This exact capability has, of course, been available for several years now, first as the commercial product GoBack, then as a built-in feature in Windows XP. (And it has done nothing substantial to solve the virus problem).
2) The breeziness with which the reporter acknowledges that using this capability would "delete the subsequent work" is astonishing. Most of us would not like losing one, two, or several days' work.
3) If you always were aware of the exact moment at which you acquired a virus, viruses would be a relatively small problem. The fact is, you don't know.
4) There's even a nonzero probability that in going back to a time when you did not have the virus that you might also be undoing security patches preventing you from acquiring new viruses.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh, right. (Score:4, Insightful)
People like to own things, whether it be a car, home, clothes, etc. Only when there is no other choice will be use "communal" stuff (electricity, etc)
When I went to University we had this "virtual" computer concept (University of Waterloo). Everything was networked and you could log on anywhere and get access to your files and programs.
YET people who could afford it bought their own computer. Simple reason why:
1) Can use the computer when you want to
2) Can put silly stickers and colors on your computer and using your own keyboard and mouse. Remember not everybody wants to use an American keyboard and push mouse. I need a trackball because I have problems with my fingers.
3) Have access to a computer, without the hassle of finding one. Imagine going from your office to a library. With a laptop it is called suspend. Going from the office to library first means finding a free computer at the library.
Nope, generally speaking silly idea....
Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Where are the applications and data really going to be stored?
2. Who has access to this information/hardware?
3. Can I trust that a terminal doesn't have a keylogger (hardware/software) attached to it?
4. How traceable will this be if somebody gains access to my "environment" without my permission.
Oh... the "Thin Client" debate again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fifteen years ago, I was one of the Thin Client evangelists trying to keep M$ Win off of the company desktops.
Thin Client has its place, but so does public transportation... and some people, no matter what, want to "drive their own."
Re:Well... IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, there are limited cases as noted in many of the other posts, but those are limited, and selective. Its one thing for someone to set up several of their own PCs and sync work from one to another. Its totally another to sell people on the idea of using "public PCs" the way people used to use public phones. The minute they had a better option than a public phone (cell phones) people dove all over it. Public phones are pretty useless mostly because of our American fierce sense of individuality. We want our individual form of transportation, our own individual tool for communication and our own individual PCs. Heck look at how few Windows CE/terminal server units are out there. Are there any at my company? none! why? technology not mature enough, cost effective enough? The biggest problem was trying to get people to let go of their "personal Computers" and exchange them for a terminal (never mind how personalized that terminal was).
Re:Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
(In X, the server runs on the client, while the clients run on the server.)
It always baffles me why people use VNC or convoluted scripts to copy over the settings when most of the time, remote X would do the job just fine. Possibly because the man pages for X in general and remote X in particular are not meant to be read by Normal People?
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:I love this quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? The parent has no stake in making this work and honestly, I don't see why anyone would want to do this. I like my laptop and the way I've configured it and customized it. PersonaIization is what makes a lot of peoples' machines what they are. don't want to have to resort to using some random public terminal somewhere.
Here's an slight corrolary, I ran out of the house without my cellphone yesterday. I needed to make a call, realized I'd forgotten my phone and then ran around for the next 10 minutes looking for a payphone that wasn't either broken or covered in mystery spooge. Rest assured that most of these public terms will probably suffer the same fate. At least in the larger cities.
So we all move to the minimum requirements? (Score:3, Insightful)
For this to be possible, all hardware has to reach the same capability and innovation has to basically halt forever. The desktop environment that I run at home is very personal and consists of both hardware and software. Even assuming everyone had 3 screens and the same keyboard and mouse type as the ones that I use, the bandwidth isn't available to make the applications and data reasonably portable. If you went the approach of just running them all remotely, you would not meet the response requirements for the system to feel right. If you ran everything locally, every machine out there would need a minimum of a 1GB RAM, a high end processor, and high end video cards + you'd need the communications bandwidth to download GBs of data quickly. Either way you're hosed.
Also, high speed internet is by no means ubiquitous at this point. I live in the eastern US, have only modem access, and there is no promise of that changing at any time soon. And don't say satellite is an option. Its more a joke for various reasons including 400K isn't exactly high speed anymore, you can't really use that for any decent length of time without being throttled, and you can forget running applications remotely or accessing data through a VPN due to latency issues. Anybody visiting me and depending on this system would be out of luck.
A far better approach is to carry all of the personalization data and have an automatic system for invisibly backing up to multiple secure sites whenever you're "plugged in". Also, a new portable interface paradigm should be developed so that we carry our "screens", "keyboards", and "mice" with us. I envision glasses, contacts, or implants for visualization and the use of cameras, sound and other input mediums to provide data. The trusty old keyboard interface can be faked using a combination of overlaying some space near you with a virtual keyboard and using video analysis to read the keystrokes. More advanced and natural interfaces could also be developed by overlaying and merging virtual reality with the real world around us.
Project Athena? (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, isn't this what 'Active Directory' is supposed to be for? Project Athena always sounded interesting, with a lot of neat stuff behind it, but the idea isn't appealing on a scale much larger than an office park or college campus.
Re:I love this quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why anyone would want to do this. I like my laptop and the way I've configured it and customized it. PersonaIization is what makes a lot of peoples' machines what they are. don't want to have to resort to using some random public terminal somewhere.
Maybe you have PC at work, and a PC at home, and a laptop you rarely use in the car. Wherever you are, grab one (non-yucky, I hope), plug in, and get your environment exactly as you left it. I do this with screen and sometimes citrix, and it's handy.
I, for one, don't like carrying a laptop (or much of anything, for that matter.)
Re:Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Try using VNC over a 64k Frame line. (It's not so bad if you remember to set the desktop to 640X480 and 256 colours.) Now try driving 6 hours to get to the same machine. Which was a better use of your time?
It might suck, but sometimes it is faster to VNC or Remote X in to a machine.
I liked it when it was called... (Score:0, Insightful)
I wouldn't use it from the Internet. (Score:3, Insightful)
To get the desired functionality at any machine (even Macs?) those machines would already have to be running the client software. So it would not be ANY computer.
Not to mention security. All it would take would be to add a keystroke logger to the machine and you've captured someone's username/password.
http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail
Public terminals are about as trustworthy as public underwear.
Re:Uh, right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is your data stored? How do you manage who owns the data? Do you own the data if you don't own the media on which it's stored? How do you enforce this?
Part of the reason people like their own cars, houses, whatever, is that they *own* it and it's tangible. People don't like to license music on a CD - the want to own the CD and do whatever they want with it (and the music on it - most people who advocate fair use aren't in the business of redistributing the music off the CD they purchased).
The issues of security and technological barriers aside, the issues of intellectual property and having control over your own [stuff] will become what's important...
Re:I love this quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Umm.. Security? (Score:3, Insightful)
Never, never, never.
Re:Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure this is the ultimate goal however there are mammoth things to overcome. A short list: bandwidth up the arse, security up the arse, redundancy up the arse, and omnipotence (this word already implies up the arse). This also opens up the door to grid computing (sigh.. up the arse) as any currently unused machine can be instantly recognized and put to use for systems currently loaded (where it can help). Every little bit usually helps.
Re:Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
But it depends on what kind of work you do. Adding a few users to a Win2003 server and sharing a directory (which is what I do over VNC) or anything that takes less than half an hour is alright over VNC. But my nerves would really wear out if I were to type a paper or a long email over a lagging VNC-connection.
The laptop will be king for a long long time (Score:3, Insightful)
There are lots of reasons this concept wont work. Security, compatibility, terminal and bandwidth availability are all issues with this approach. Each year laptops get significantly lighter, faster, cheaper and more popular. I heard a statistic recently that it's that soon (possibly happened already) more computers purchased will be laptops than desktops. The price premium for a laptop vs. other options is becoming smaller and as their capabilities expand, much easier to justify.
To illustrate this, my in-laws house is a very old farmhouse. Their is no computer, no keyboards or monitors, no internet connection and barely any electrical system however just a few days ago I was playing lan games with my nieces and nephews there. I have 2 laptops with wireless cards built in and using them I can have a 2 computer office/gaming environment with networking that fits in one bag I can sling over my shoulder. This is awesome, not "laughable".
I can do software development, work on presentations, compose messages all without any infrastructure at all. I can work or play in a field, on a train, in an car, on a bus, or in an airplane half way across the pacific. That's the power of the modern laptop and no web-based app can come close to that. Think about what infrastructure would be needed to make all those places have access to this service and how many companies would have to be involved and taking a cut. Bus companies, car manufacturers, airlines, satellite internet providers, cellular data networks, not to mention farmers with fields. The massive effort it would take to even come close to the capabilities of a laptop is mind-boggling.
There will always be a place for web-based applications and a place for non-web based applications. This concept will probably be appropriate for some content creation and collaboration purposes but I think it's utility is small and the idea of carrying a laptop won't be laughable any decade soon.
Data logger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I love this quote... (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, you'd drop $5 for a cup of convenient coffee every day, right? Is it so different drop a few bucks for a couple changes of briefs and tees, and then leave them behind?
Oh, wait, you probably wanted some intelligent banter about the preferences... Certainly some form of encryption would be made available. Wrap everything in a 4096-bit PKI scheme. Works for mail, why not preferences and data? I feel pretty safe with my SSH tunneled connections to VNC and RDP servers behind my firewalls; would this truly be so different (data v. screenshot not the point).
Re:Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, sadly, that's not the case for Gnome and KDE apps because those environments have introduced communications mechanisms that bypass the X11 server.
Also, the drawing and redraw logic in those apps (as well as applications like Mozilla) doesn't work well on remote displays.