Stallman Worried About Chrome OS 393
dkd903 noted that Stallman is speaking out about the risks of Chrome OS and giving up all your local data into the cloud, pushing people into "Careless Computing." Which is a much more urgent concern than something like calling it GNU/Chrome OS.
Proprietary Software (Score:5, Interesting)
So why would anyone be surprised the RMS takes issue with an OS that is designed to be cloud-centric?
Agreed. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want my information in the cloud.
Neither do I want the inevitable yearly charge for constant upgrades to the latest Cloud software. I bought MS Office *once* for ~$80 and have been using it for thirteen years. (Likewise I bought Final Fantasy 10 for $20 and have been playing it for ten years. In contrast Final Fantasy 11 requires a ~$5 per month constant fee.) No thanks. I want to OWN my software not rent it.
I see the point (Score:2, Interesting)
I see the point RMS is making but then again the point of ChromeOS is to not store things locally so they can be available from multiple locations.
There is nothing to stop you from creating your own website, with your own notepad, doc setup and logging into that. you don't need google's stuff. There are lots of different companies that offer such things now a days.
Times have changed ... sort of (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Progress" (Score:2, Interesting)
The progress is having your data accessible from any computer. The example given in one of the Chrome OS promotional videos was having your machine break and picking up a new one, logging in, and continuing your work like nothing happened.
Re:"Progress" (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'm not so sure about is if this is really the best possible implementation of the "store it in the cloud" concept. Google's design seems to be: have all the documents and applications in the cloud, and download the minimum necessary to your local computer to get your work done. The disadvantages have been pointed out many times: lack of net connection makes getting anything done painful or impossible (even with some amount of local caching, it doesn't work that well), latency of the network slows down application performance, third-party has full access to all your data. And so on...
It seems like a better model would be to continue to use your local computer for data and storage and running applications, but have the computer synchronize all files to "somewhere in the cloud" on a very routine basis (like, every time you save a document or the application auto-saves). Other computer you authorize then synchronize from the cloud, as needed. The copy in the cloud can be encrypted, so only you have access to your sensitive data. Applications could actually work similarly: your computer synchronizes a list of installed applications and settings, so that other computers have access to the same work environment. At its most basic, this is probably what most geeks already do: organize files on their computer but have some offsite backup location. One could package the whole thing up so that it is much more slick and automated. In my opinion this would be have almost all of the advantages of Google's offering, without the drawbacks (a lack of a net connection just delays the backup-sync; you can still work normally).
My point is that the ideas of "in the cloud" are not bad. They are good ideas. The problem is that the implementations are not the best. Obviously companies have more to gain in terms of data mining (by having access to your data) and lock-in (by hosting the closed-source applications for you) by doing it their way... But hopefully we will see more competing efforts (Ubuntu One [ubuntu.com] might be a step towards that...).
Imagine a cloud (Score:5, Interesting)
it cant be controlled. it cant be killed. it cant be censored. it cant be outdone. its everywhere.
that is the kind of cloud i would be willing to move into, without hesitation.
something after the format that bitcoin project uses http://www.bitcoin.org/ [bitcoin.org] ( i know this is the second time i linked this, but im enthusiastic )
Re:So don't. (Score:4, Interesting)
Easy does not always mean better. The goal of a capitalistic endeavor is to provide a product/service at a price point more convenient than doing it yourself. In exchange for the cost and convenience, we may sacrifice certain qualitative considerations that we would have built in had we done it ourselves. This applies to many things... architecture, automobiles, food, fashion, consumer electronics, TV signals, and software.
In the case of cloud computing, most customers appear willing to sacrifice their privacy in exchange for some software convenience or feature. We simply don't know how this will turn out in the long run. It is conceivable that a few high profile privacy or security violations by a cloud provider will change everyone's perspective in the future. Perhaps next year, or perhaps in 20. But it isn't quite accurate to relate customer behavior with what will ultimately be the best model. I prefer to think of consumerism as herd testing, and sometimes prefer to stand on the sideline watching to see if the herd goes over the cliff or not. Remember how blood letting turned out?
So I agree with RMS, cloud computing without ironclad legal protections do not currently safeguard individual's interests for personal privacy.
People don't back up... (Score:4, Interesting)
Valid concerns (Score:4, Interesting)
Normally, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to Mr. Stallman, but in this case, I think he's spot on. First, it is nice to have access to your data anywhere you might be, on the other hand, the first rule in securing data is to limit access to it. If I'm at the local coffee shop, using an internet cafe computer, how do I know what has been cached or not locally. I don't, which means I should assume that everything is (from a security perspective) and not do anything that might disclose sensitive information like bank accounts and passwords. Oh, wait, to use the cloud services, I have to enter my password, so right there is a potential security problem.
In arguing against Mr. Stallman's position, many point out how the use of computers has changed since the internet and how everything is now in the cloud. That might be fine if you are updating FB or tweeting, etc. But if you are a business, do you really want your employees transmitting sensitive corporate information over unsecure and unencrypted lines? Plus, in the past, if the salesperson lost their laptop, their data was exposed. Now, if they lose it, the data of everything they might have access to on the corporate site is exposed.
Also, for cloud computing to really be effective, people need broadband. Didn't they just report, yesterday, that 68% of the country (US) does not have access to broadband (3mbit or greater speed)?
Cloud computing sounds like a great idea, but, how do you secure the data? Is everyone going to have a FOB, like a lot of banks use for online banking? What about when the cloud is unavailable (anybody hear about the DOS attacks by anonymous)? The current notion of storing everything on the internet on somebody else's server doesn't seem like the most logical thing in the world (other than from a marketing perspective).
I wonder if Wikileaks had been using chromeOS and was accused of violated google's acceptable use policy, what would have happened to their data. We've already seen what happened to their funds with paypal and the major credit cards. Why would we think google would be any different?
Is it just me.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it just me or does any of this sound familiar. It seems ever since the data center lost control of the data by the introduction of those toys (called the personal computer, back in the day), they've been trying to get it back. We've had citrix servers, remote access, thin clients, etc. Everything with the notion that all you need is a dumb terminal or a scaled down pc not much more than a dumb terminal and everything you need will be taken care of on the back end.
We've seen that model fail over and over, why would cloud computing, using the internet instead of coax or leased lines be any different? If you like the idea of somebody else having the ultimate control of your data and how you can access it, great, go for it. However, if you are concerned with who at google, or wherever has access to your data, what will they do with it, etc., then why would you ever want this. Wasn't it the slashdot crowd that was upset not too long ago because google was scanning emails for marketing purposes? What will happen when they do it to your corporate documents and corporate emails?
Thin clients were supposed to hold down costs, eliminate upgrade headaches and make everyone more productive. That didn't happen. Now we are told that cloud computing is the answer, and yet, all it is is repackaging of the old thin client model, but run on a public network with a third party corporation serving up your data. And this is supposed to be good, how?