Web-based programs like Google's Gmail will force people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that will cost more and more over time, according to the free software campaigner



The concept of using web-based programs like Google's Gmail is "worse than stupidity", according to a leading advocate of free software.

Cloud computing – where IT power is delivered over the internet as you need it, rather than drawn from a desktop computer – has gained currency in recent years. Large internet and technology companies including Google, Microsoft and Amazon are pushing forward their plans to deliver information and software over the net.

But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time.

"It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign," he told The Guardian.

"Somebody is saying this is inevitable – and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true."

The 55-year-old New Yorker said that computer users should be keen to keep their information in their own hands, rather than hand it over to a third party.

His comments echo those made last week by Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle, who criticised the rash of cloud computing announcements as "fashion-driven" and "complete gibberish".

"The interesting thing about cloud computing is that we've redefined cloud computing to include everything that we already do," he said. "The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?"

The growing number of people storing information on internet-accessible servers rather than on their own machines, has become a core part of the rise of Web 2.0 applications. Millions of people now upload personal data such as emails, photographs and, increasingly, their work, to sites owned by companies such as Google.

Computer manufacturer Dell recently even tried to trademark the term "cloud computing", although its application was refused.

But there has been growing concern that mainstream adoption of cloud computing could present a mixture of privacy and ownership issues, with users potentially being locked out of their own files.

Stallman, who is a staunch privacy advocate, advised users to stay local and stick with their own computers.

"One reason you should not use web applications to do your computing is that you lose control," he said. "It's just as bad as using a proprietary program. Do your own computing on your own computer with your copy of a freedom-respecting program. If you use a proprietary program or somebody else's web server, you're defenceless. You're putty in the hands of whoever developed that software."


Source :- http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/200...d.stallman

I absolutely agree with this statement 100%. Cloud computing is putting ALL of your data into the hands of someone who you dont know, youve never met, youve never done a background check on, you dont know them for adam, they can easily be bribed into giving ALL OF YOUR DATA into the hands of the wrong person (competitor for companies, police or data farms for individuals)

Cloud computing IS NOT SECURE by ANY MEANS, it puts your system at risk of being compromised due to the fact that the hosting system has to have access to your system at ALL times, which means it has Super User or Domain Admin rights in one form or another over your data, which means that AT ANY TIME, a person who gets paid relatively poorly can tap your data and access it for any reason, or NO REASON. Youll never know, youll never find out, and if their selling your data out the back door, theres not a DAMN THING you can do about it.

And on TOP OF THAT, theyve got you on CONTRACT, which means youll be FORCED to continue using them, EVEN IF YOU FIND OUT THEYRE DEALING OUT THE BACK DOOR for the remaining period of your contract, or you have to pay MILLIONS in contract violations to break the agreement.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you as well , he's right.

Anynoumous wrote:

I absolutely agree with this statement 100%. Cloud computing is putting ALL of your data into the hands of someone who you dont know, youve never met, youve never done a background check on, you dont know them for adam, they can easily be bribed into giving ALL OF YOUR DATA into the hands of the wrong person (competitor for companies, police or data farms for individuals)

Cloud computing IS NOT SECURE by ANY MEANS, it puts your system at risk of being compromised due to the fact that the hosting system has to have access to your system at ALL times, which means it has Super User or Domain Admin rights in one form or another over your data, which means that AT ANY TIME, a person who gets paid relatively poorly can tap your data and access it for any reason, or NO REASON. Youll never know, youll never find out, and if their selling your data out the back door, theres not a DAMN THING you can do about it.

And on TOP OF THAT, theyve got you on CONTRACT, which means youll be FORCED to continue using them, EVEN IF YOU FIND OUT THEYRE DEALING OUT THE BACK DOOR for the remaining period of your contract, or you have to pay MILLIONS in contract violations to break the agreement.

Well said, and what you said is absolutely true and there are some cases of corporate companies being compromised, they would never know how secure the data is

I personnaly will never use this, I have apple products but never will I use the cloud

Right..
And what is the Ubuntu One Cloud gets hacked? And data gets leaked?
Then what?

the better question is...if its so popular, why isnt DoD on it? Why is DoD so ADAMANT about having their "own cloud" if it was so SECURE they would just use it, but its not. its not seperated its not isolated, its not safe. They want their own cloud, or none at all. if it was so much better, wed all be on the cloud by now, but were not.

As true as it is, I don't see the negative. Just make sure truecrypt container with a strong password. That way, you can store whatever you want, and only you're in control of it.