On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:00 +0000, Stroller wrote: > On 29 Jan 2010, at 05:43, Iain Buchanan wrote: > > > They got it right for being open to OSS, but they got it wrong with > > the > > word "cloud"... > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman > > > Seems like Stallman's objections don't apply because the proposal is > that they own their own cloud.
I don't think his objections are just related to public vs private. As Neil said, there's the security problem to begin with, where one large government data centre has more data to compromise that a small one... > I.E. the use of the word "cloud" is just buzzwordology to gain > approval & acceptance. ... Another problem is the use of the word "cloud" when already we don't know exactly what they mean by it (it sounds like a manager buzz word to me) so they're going to have trouble defining it to themselves, and other govt departments. But the principle still remains that they're handing over locally served (ie maybe a server, maybe a desktop) data to a central "cloud" that will put its own limits on security, size, etc. Not to mention the separation of distance. No matter how good your network link is, it's not as good as your SATA interface! And at the worst of times you may loose not only your data, but your ability to create new data! > One could weigh the pros & cons of using regional data centres for > this, versus a server room in the basement of the individual > government buildings in Swansea (DVLA), Bristol (TV licensing) & > wherever, but I just feel too pessimistic about this today to feel > it's worth it. I'm all for data centres, since they can put massive CPU and storage volumes at the other end of the network link for you to work with (backups, web servers, etc) but it becomes very problematic when you use a web browser to write an office document. > Stroller. -- Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au> I didn't like the play, but I saw it under adverse conditions. The curtain was up.
