Google Chrome OS: Too little, too early

Muad'Dib wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> Security will have to get a lot better than it is now. Data centers have
> been hacked recently, compromising many, many, people's personal data.
> Some have been inside jobs, some haven't. What's worse, YOUR/OUR
> personal data is being put on loosely secured external, (Cloud if you
> will), servers, WITHOUT any regard to YOUR/OUR wishes. We are ALL
> vulnerable right now, period.
> No, I don't see "Cloud" computing being universally adopted any time
> soon, without super strict, tight, failsafe, security. ..Which so far,
> has been proven NOT to be the case.
>
> G'day<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Not just secure, but with a strong backup and recovery strategy. No
good entrusting ones data to a secure "cloud" system if that system has
no robust backup strategy in place.

--
Jane, not plain 64 bit enabled
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
MVP - Windows Desktop Experience 2007-2009

 

Jane C wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Muad'Dib wrote:
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> Security will have to get a lot better than it is now. Data centers
>> have been hacked recently, compromising many, many, people's personal
>> data. Some have been inside jobs, some haven't. What's worse, YOUR/OUR
>> personal data is being put on loosely secured external, (Cloud if you
>> will), servers, WITHOUT any regard to YOUR/OUR wishes. We are ALL
>> vulnerable right now, period.
>> No, I don't see "Cloud" computing being universally adopted any time
>> soon, without super strict, tight, failsafe, security. ..Which so far,
>> has been proven NOT to be the case.
>>
>> G'day<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Not just secure, but with a strong backup and recovery strategy. No
> good entrusting ones data to a secure "cloud" system if that system has
> no robust backup strategy in place.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Agreed! Absolutely!

 

Security will remain as the foremost important consideration for serious
business (or even individuals) to deploying new technologies.

Even with a strong or world-class backup/recovery strategy, as pointed out
by Jane C., it's only good for restoring lost/damaged data but can't never
compensate the loss of misused data. So, security will be the first issue
to address.

At the same time, I also believe that there are many intelligent and
experienced professionals in all functional fields who would strive to come
out a better solution. So, I would let them do their job.

As for me, I always like new concepts, models, and technologies, so I will
be cautiously optimistic.



"Muad'Dib" <idaspud52@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A59AABE.9030601@nospamhotmail.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Jane C wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Muad'Dib wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>> Security will have to get a lot better than it is now. Data centers have
>>> been hacked recently, compromising many, many, people's personal data.
>>> Some have been inside jobs, some haven't. What's worse, YOUR/OUR
>>> personal data is being put on loosely secured external, (Cloud if you
>>> will), servers, WITHOUT any regard to YOUR/OUR wishes. We are ALL
>>> vulnerable right now, period.
>>> No, I don't see "Cloud" computing being universally adopted any time
>>> soon, without super strict, tight, failsafe, security. ..Which so far,
>>> has been proven NOT to be the case.
>>>
>>> G'day<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Not just secure, but with a strong backup and recovery strategy. No good
>> entrusting ones data to a secure "cloud" system if that system has no
>> robust backup strategy in place.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Agreed! Absolutely! <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

xfile wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Security will remain as the foremost important consideration for
> serious business (or even individuals) to deploying new technologies.
>
>
> Even with a strong or world-class backup/recovery strategy, as
> pointed out by Jane C., it's only good for restoring lost/damaged
> data but can't never compensate the loss of misused data. So,
> security will be the first issue to address.
>
> At the same time, I also believe that there are many intelligent and
> experienced professionals in all functional fields who would strive
> to come out a better solution. So, I would let them do their job.
>
> As for me, I always like new concepts, models, and technologies, so I
> will be cautiously optimistic. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Oh, I'm all about embracing new technology, no problem there. BUT I'm
NOT about adopting newer technology unit it's READY. I read in the paper
just today about security problems with the latest greatest technology,
RFID chips, particularly in passports. Even the guy having to do with
developing it, who sits on an advisory board for the US, has advised
about security problems yet it still has been deployed never-the-less.
That's the problem, even when issues are exposed, the technology gets
advanced and adopted anyway. So again, unless there is super strict,
tight, failsafe, security, our personal data is and will be vulnerable
period.

G'day
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Muad'Dib" <idaspud52@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4A59AABE.9030601@nospamhotmail.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Jane C wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Muad'Dib wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Security will have to get a lot better than it is now. Data
>>>> centers have been hacked recently, compromising many, many,
>>>> people's personal data. Some have been inside jobs, some
>>>> haven't. What's worse, YOUR/OUR personal data is being put on
>>>> loosely secured external, (Cloud if you will), servers, WITHOUT
>>>> any regard to YOUR/OUR wishes. We are ALL vulnerable right now,
>>>> period. No, I don't see "Cloud" computing being universally
>>>> adopted any time soon, without super strict, tight, failsafe,
>>>> security. ..Which so far, has been proven NOT to be the case.
>>>>
>>>> G'day
>>>
>>> Not just secure, but with a strong backup and recovery strategy.
>>> No good entrusting ones data to a secure "cloud" system if that
>>> system has no robust backup strategy in place.
>>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Agreed! Absolutely!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Muad'Dib wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> Oh, I'm all about embracing new technology, no problem there. BUT I'm
> NOT about adopting newer technology unit it's READY. I read in the paper
> just today about security problems with the latest greatest technology,
> RFID chips, particularly in passports. Even the guy having to do with
> developing it, who sits on an advisory board for the US, has advised
> about security problems yet it still has been deployed never-the-less.
> That's the problem, even when issues are exposed, the technology gets
> advanced and adopted anyway. So again, unless there is super strict,
> tight, failsafe, security, our personal data is and will be vulnerable
> period.
>
> G'day
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Exactly so


--
Jane, not plain 64 bit enabled
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
MVP - Windows Desktop Experience 2007-2009

 

I agree with you, of course.

A few years ago, RFID was a hot topic especially in the retail industry. I
remember some giant retailers, such as Wxx-Mart, were initiating projects
for putting RFID chips on shopping carts to monitor shopping behavior so
that they could provide more accurate merchandising and more focused
promotions. However, I personally disagreed with projects like this simply
for privacy reason. I would support only for tracking physical goods and/or
animals but not on human beings.

No worries, I am a believer of technology but not a technology maniac nor a
technology slave. I like art even more

"Jane C" <janecolman@iinet.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:OPGSyn6AKHA.1488@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Muad'Dib wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> Oh, I'm all about embracing new technology, no problem there. BUT I'm
>> NOT about adopting newer technology unit it's READY. I read in the paper
>> just today about security problems with the latest greatest technology,
>> RFID chips, particularly in passports. Even the guy having to do with
>> developing it, who sits on an advisory board for the US, has advised
>> about security problems yet it still has been deployed never-the-less.
>> That's the problem, even when issues are exposed, the technology gets
>> advanced and adopted anyway. So again, unless there is super strict,
>> tight, failsafe, security, our personal data is and will be vulnerable
>> period.
>>
>> G'day
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Exactly so
>
>
> --
> Jane, not plain 64 bit enabled
> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
> MVP - Windows Desktop Experience 2007-2009 <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

My apology for replying to the wrong person; it was meant for Muad'Dib.

"xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:#PChPn7AKHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I agree with you, of course.
>
> A few years ago, RFID was a hot topic especially in the retail industry.
> I remember some giant retailers, such as Wxx-Mart, were initiating
> projects for putting RFID chips on shopping carts to monitor shopping
> behavior so that they could provide more accurate merchandising and more
> focused promotions. However, I personally disagreed with projects like
> this simply for privacy reason. I would support only for tracking
> physical goods and/or animals but not on human beings.
>
> No worries, I am a believer of technology but not a technology maniac nor
> a technology slave. I like art even more
>
> "Jane C" <janecolman@iinet.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
> news:OPGSyn6AKHA.1488@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Muad'Dib wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm all about embracing new technology, no problem there. BUT I'm
>>> NOT about adopting newer technology unit it's READY. I read in the paper
>>> just today about security problems with the latest greatest technology,
>>> RFID chips, particularly in passports. Even the guy having to do with
>>> developing it, who sits on an advisory board for the US, has advised
>>> about security problems yet it still has been deployed never-the-less.
>>> That's the problem, even when issues are exposed, the technology gets
>>> advanced and adopted anyway. So again, unless there is super strict,
>>> tight, failsafe, security, our personal data is and will be vulnerable
>>> period.
>>>
>>> G'day
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Exactly so
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jane, not plain 64 bit enabled
>> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
>> MVP - Windows Desktop Experience 2007-2009<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"truthkid" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:ea78b032540d20675fdd8d01aa9bd689@nntp-gateway.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> If you use proprietary plugins built for IE or pages built to be viewed
> on IE I could understand what you're saying, but I'm a DoD employee and
> have yet to hit a page that doesn't function with Chrome (that is pages
> not requiring a CAC card, as I've yet to test this because I don't use a
> CAC on my personal computer). I wonder what percentage of internet usage
> at home is actually work and what is personal? If more is personal, then
> Chrome's simplicity makes complete sense.
>
>
> --
> truthkid<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I did visit a page that didn't load properly in Chrome, but since then
either that page has been updated and/or Chrome is more forgiving.
The advantage of Chrome, at least over IE6, is that it loads web pages a lot
faster if they run javascript. I believe such speed enhancements have been
added to IE8. The other advantage of Chrome would be that more people are
using IE, so if someone writes a virus that targets just one specific
browser, they're likely going after IE.

 

"Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:eClbEZnAKHA.1492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> What they are saying and what is real can be two entirely different
> things. There is no cloud, -hello- .
>
> Saucy
>
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
I don't know the details of the "cloud" technology so I'm also a bit
skeptical.

1) I believe a true "cloud" would not put your data on someone else's
server. It would spread the data and backups of the data over many many
servers and give you a local set of keys that tells you where to find your
data, where the spread out pieces of data without the keys would be absolute
gibberish.

2) Cloud computing is being touted as the next big thing. Everyone is
taking it. MS is pushing cloud computing with their Office 2010 app.

3) Many companies put their sensitive data on someone else's server already
and expect it will be secure. Ask anyone who has ever outsourced payroll.

4) Many big companies decide it's cheaper to store data on someone else's
servers than to buy their own machines and pay their own staff to maintain
them. Cost savings are all the rage especially in this economy. There used
to be a Woolworth building in NYC. The company changed over the years and
decided they only needed 1 floor of the building and it was cheaper to sell
the building and lease that floor than to maintain the whole thing.

 

> I don't know the details of the "cloud" technology so I'm also a bit <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> skeptical.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Like you, I am a bit of confused about the term - cloud, provided we have
been using a "cloud" as an Internet symbol since the very beginning? By and
large, my view is that it's just an extension of Internet technologies for
using new technologies on new products/services for existing or modified
service business models. Of course, I could be wrong as always

If one cares to search for the term - ASP (application service provider),
one would know that similar services have existed for some time. ERP
leader, SAP for example, started with a client/server architecture focusing
on worldwide enterprise customers, and later on, also used an ASP model for
smaller companies. Salesforce.com, on the other hand, started with an ASP
model in mind for frontend sales applications, and now evolves to more
comprehensive CRM (customer relationship management).
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> MS is pushing cloud computing with their Office 2010 app.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

What I know is that MS have been planning/testing, unsuccessfully, service
models for some time, and notably, MSN (Premium) was one of their projects
initially aiming at AOL, and later on, aiming at Google. Office 2010 would
be one of their latest tries.

In my humble opinion, one of their biggest challenges is that they have
always been a product-oriented company focusing on software development,
which would have a drastically different culture and management style than a
service-oriented company. They, of course, can continue to hire top notch
professionals to join their company, but it will be a long process for
changing a company's embedded culture from a product-oriented to a
service-oriented company.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> 3) Many companies put their sensitive data on someone else's server
> already and expect it will be secure. Ask anyone who has ever outsourced
> payroll.
>
> 4) Many big companies decide it's cheaper to store data on someone else's
> servers than to buy their own machines and pay their own staff to maintain
> them. Cost savings are all the rage especially in this economy. There
> used to be a Woolworth building in NYC. The company changed over the
> years and decided they only needed 1 floor of the building and it was
> cheaper to sell the building and lease that floor than to maintain the
> whole thing.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Whether it's cloud or ASP, they are all part of outsourcing trends with an
easy-to-understand management concept - Focus on what you do best, and let
others do what they do best.

Commonly shared consensus is to outsource non-strategic and non
mission-critical operations to a "competent" and "trustful" 3rd party
service provider.

The interesting/tricky part of the concept is, each company has a different
definition of what is a non-strategic or non mission-critical operation
provided it also involves self-interests of different departments, so like
almost all concepts, it's easy to understand but difficult to implement it
right.

Payroll is one area where many companies have outsourced the entire
operation (including staff, operation, and data) to a competent 3rd party
service provider such as a consulting/accounting firm. But when it comes to
sensitive data, again, it depends on each company's own definition. Some
will never want to put their product designs data on any other servers while
others may see real-time production data may be the most critical ones.

In any case, we should also note that having a 3rd party service provider to
maintain physical assets and to perform routine maintenance work doesn't
equate to storing data on a 3rd party's server or using on-demand
applications.

In the former case which usually is referred as collocation, assets are
(mostly) owned by the company and it's to utilize the concept as you
described for sharing facilities, network bandwidth, emergency
infrastructures, and non-essential operators whiteout losing control of the
assets including hardware, software, and data. It's not uncommon for the
3rd party service provider will not have the permission to access to data
and/or applications.

In the latter case, applications are actually hosted and provided by a 3rd
party service provider and data can be stored either locally or on a remote
server owned by a 3rd party service provider who has the permission to set
every access right. This is where more concerns may be raised.

But then again, it's up to each company to determine what are sensitive data
and what are strategic vs. non-strategic operations, and that is what
management competency is all about

What motivated me to write this unusual lengthy post was not about computing
technologies but the following friendly reminder for IT professionals
working at a corporate/business environment.

You really need to put your company's interests ahead of any
application/service provider's, so you would only introduce/implement
technologies that will produce tangible benefits for your company including
its customers, suppliers, and staffs. This is the ONLY way for you to be
seen as a "strategic" part of the operation.

Since the beginning of the 90's, more and more companies across the world
have seen their operations have been "hijacked" by internal IT
departments/staffs who put the interests of their personal preferences or of
the application providers far more than the company's. Consequently,
companies were unable to initiate projects that they wished to and/or
couldn't switch to other products/technologies because of the "religious
beliefs" of the internal departments/staffs. The "ransom" (a term used by
many management executives) paid by companies for unable to switch to or use
needed technologies far outweighed the benefits of having internal IT
staffs. That is one essential business driver for motivating companies to
use a (domestic or international) outsource partner so that they could
regain the freedom of using IT as nothing but a business tool.

It's not just about IT but also applies to other functional departments, but
since this is a tech/MS newsgroup, so I decided to share with some of you
just in case you wonder why IT outsourcing has been a trend. Labor cost,
contrary to popular belief, is just part of cost equation and not the most
important part.

Unlike some in this newsgroup, you don't make a living by products provided
by an application/service/technology provider, you got it from the company
who employs you, and separate your hobbies/preferences/beliefs from your
professional.

My two cents.




"Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:ubklO3jBKHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:eClbEZnAKHA.1492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> What they are saying and what is real can be two entirely different
>> things. There is no cloud, -hello- .
>>
>> Saucy
>>
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> I don't know the details of the "cloud" technology so I'm also a bit
> skeptical.
>
> 1) I believe a true "cloud" would not put your data on someone else's
> server. It would spread the data and backups of the data over many many
> servers and give you a local set of keys that tells you where to find your
> data, where the spread out pieces of data without the keys would be
> absolute gibberish.
>
> 2) Cloud computing is being touted as the next big thing. Everyone is
> taking it. MS is pushing cloud computing with their Office 2010 app.
>
> 3) Many companies put their sensitive data on someone else's server
> already and expect it will be secure. Ask anyone who has ever outsourced
> payroll.
>
> 4) Many big companies decide it's cheaper to store data on someone else's
> servers than to buy their own machines and pay their own staff to maintain
> them. Cost savings are all the rage especially in this economy. There
> used to be a Woolworth building in NYC. The company changed over the
> years and decided they only needed 1 floor of the building and it was
> cheaper to sell the building and lease that floor than to maintain the
> whole thing.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:12:40 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Like you, I am a bit of confused about the term - cloud, provided we have
>been using a "cloud" as an Internet symbol since the very beginning? By and
>large, my view is that it's just an extension of Internet technologies for
>using new technologies on new products/services for existing or modified
>service business models. Of course, I could be wrong as always <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It's like "Web 2.0". It was in place and working, based on existing
technologies, when some folks decided that it needed a name. Once it
has a name, they can do seminars and magazine articles on it.
Companies can offer it as a solution or note that they are compatible
with it.

This is in a sense, an enhancement of (true) marketing. Instead of
looking for a niche to fill, they create the niche through massive
advertising and promotion. Then they follow the standard business
model to supply the market.

MS, with some of the deepest advertising pockets is behind it for
several reasons. First, it's creating more demand. Second, it is
heading in exactly the direction they want to go: leased/rented
software that isn't installed on your machine.

Note that MS will be "giving away" a trimmed version of MS-Office in
the near future to be used across the 'net. That's not out of the
goodness of their heart, it's to get people used to using software
across the network. People who pay will get additional features.

And so it begins.

 

xfile wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I don't know the details of the "cloud" technology so I'm also a bit
>> skeptical.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Like you, I am a bit of confused about the term - cloud, provided we
> have been using a "cloud" as an Internet symbol since the very
> beginning? By and large, my view is that it's just an extension of
> Internet technologies for using new technologies on new
> products/services for existing or modified service business models. Of
> course, I could be wrong as always
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Cloud technology is about providing services by means of a browser to a
consumer/client, using Service Oriented Architecture as the
infrastructure used by the Cloud provider. Cloud technology as far a
Chrome is concerned may do something in the home consumer sector.

Many companies already provide Cloud technology to its
internal(Intranet) and ex-internal(Internet) users via Web portals, and
they are not going to go to some 3rd party service provider that's
offering some kind of Cloud service.

Just the other day, NexisLexis had someone that worked for the company
steal thousands of records that were to be sold on the black-market to
hackers and identity thieves. He was caught.

There is going to be no company that is concerned about its day-2-day
business activities and its records is going to turn it over to be done
by some 3rd party Cloud provider.

Yeah, payroll is being out sourced by a whole lot of companies, but you
can bet that an eye is being kept on what is happening by the company
that uses such a service. There could be some other things like
Point-of-Sales etc, etc.

A Cloud service bureau is not going to materialize as some major players
on the Internet. That was already tired by data centers in the 70's and
80's, and it didn't last.

 

Re: Ther Elemental POS is the dumbest person in the universe!

Frank wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Your real "mistake", was thinking you were smarter than me!...LOL!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


dont even go there...

I am to you, as a human to a worm

 

Re: Google Chrome OS: my brain Too little, too early

Elemental wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> crap deleted before reading<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Message deleted after reading. You sure are STUPID.

 

Re: frank is spanky's momar!

deleted and ignored

Perhaps it was all those experiments they did on you in the military