Stallman: Cloud computing is 'stupidity'
Not everyone loves cloud computing. Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the GNU operating system, says cloud computing is "stupidity" that ultimately will result in vendor lock-in and escalating costs.
"The interesting thing about cloud computing is that we've redefined cloud computing to include everything that we already do," Stallman said, in a report posted by The Guardian on Monday.
Richard Stallman, speaking at MIT in 2006.
(Credit: CNET Networks)Cloud computing, the latest marketing description for a notion put forth by computer industry companies in recent years, moves most of the computing power--and sometimes data--to servers maintained by companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. The classic example of cloud computing might be Gmail, offered by Google.
Stallman says cloud computing forces people to hand over control of their information to a third party. His objections echo his longstanding belief in non-proprietary software. "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 defenseless. You're putty in the hands of whoever developed that software," he said.
Stallman dismisses cloud computing as industry bluster. "It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign," he said. "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."
Mike Ricciuti joined CNET in 1996. He is now CNET News' Boston-based executive editor and east coast bureau chief, serving as department editor for business technology and software covered by CNET News, Reviews, and Download.com. E-mail Mike. 
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can only say things I agree with...
Others do happen to agree with Stallman. I know I do. I doubt I'm alone. Just because people don't know my name doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. Businesses based on proprietary software don't care about the end-user. They don't care whats best for you. They only care that you *think* they know whats best and as long as the lines up with what makes them the most money, they're happy. FOSS companies actually care about delivering a better product because they have no hooks to put in you. The only way they get business is to actually make the end-user happy. It's silly to assume otherwise.
Also, while we in America decry socialism, we are surprisingly socialist in our government 'bailouts' for businesses.
* Stallman's concept of copyright (the GNU GPL and freedom), and information (maximized freedom and balanced with privacy)
* The RIAA and most corporate entity's concept of copyright (pay forever, lawsuits against those suspected of not paying, etc), and information (closed to anyone without sufficient money to rent it - except for private information of course, which is to be rented-out to the highest bidders).
You (and the rest of us in consumerland) get to pick which way the future lies.
-and no, I'm not socialist.
/P
While I wasn't sure if I 'd get authorized to use my software again, I wasn't worried about the software. It's the data. My data which reflects my hard work.
He is just pushing his socialist ideas on people who know they are not valid. Only so many people can look like Jesus and tell the world they are going to save everyone by giving things away, because there are only so many idiots who will fund their stupidity.
BTW, I hope you don't work in sales, because with your communication skills, your solution might well prove to be one of those that goes poof! in the night.
Just replace "computer manufacturer they buy from" to "cloud computing company they buy from"
If cloud computing works for you. Great. Just remember if you can't log in, the server crashes, or the company goes belly up, so much for the data. If you never care about that proposal again. You are out noting.
I think you overestimate his importance. That wonderful operating system you're referring to still has less than 0.25% market penetration, and is a fractured mess. The only thing Stallman created was emacs, another relic of the 90s (except for zealots, of course).
At any rate, the point is that Stallman is wrong, yet again. Yes, there are major privacy concerns to be addressed, but cloud computing is not just a fad. It not only makes a lot of sense, consumers are already using (and demanding) it. Being worried about storing your grocery list on Google Docs is a little paranoid. For those items that require significant security measures, I have no doubt that they'll remain on your computer. Yet, the vast majority of computing can be safely done in the cloud with no ill effects.
Dismissing something real (that the data is what's important) for something that at best will only be an option in the larger world of computers would be wrong to think.
Ummm, and maybe the most important compiler in the world, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection">gcc</a>?
I think you overestimate his importance. That wonderful operating system you're referring to still has less than 0.25% market penetration, and is a fractured mess. The only thing Stallman created was emacs, another relic of the 90s (except for zealots, of course).
At any rate, the point is that Stallman is wrong, yet again. Yes, there are major privacy concerns to be addressed, but cloud computing is not just a fad. It not only makes a lot of sense, consumers are already using (and demanding) it. Being worried about storing your grocery list on Google Docs is a little paranoid. For those items that require significant security measures, I have no doubt that they'll remain on your computer. Yet, the vast majority of computing can be safely done in the cloud with no ill effects.
I do agree with Stallman's basic idea of minimizing your exposure to other corporation's methods and policies. Not to mention every FBI/CIA guy waving a supeona.
He and some of the other public domain/GNU license type folks may appear paranoid at times, but a little paranoia won't hurt you.
Advocating either approach as being unilaterally 'correct' seems short-sighted. Why not examine the trade-offs of cloud vs. local for a particular application?
Dismissing this categorically is really stating that any further progress and solutions are unnecessary and not needed.
IM doesn't need a central server. I can work without it. There are all sorts of options out there. Cloud as envisioned and Cloud as it will ultimatly pan out are only 2 options.
As far as being lock-in to a vendor and losing control. I believe vendor would have little incentive to lock in customer and be inflexible with the customer needs. I think vendors will want to play nice with each other to keep thier customers happy.
Just like they do today (sarcasm). Everyone from Microsoft to Apple to Adobe to Symantec to Intuit and on and on do try to lock you into their software. It's nice to think of a world where all the vendors want to play nice, but unfortunately we live in a world where all the vendors want to see their competition put out of business. This won't change with cloud computing.
First of all, there are many MANY applications that it simply will not work for. Period. End of discussion.
Second, people want to control their data.
Third, security minded people want to control their hardware.
Trust Microsoft? Surely you jest. Is there anyone who is actually that naive?
Both sides have good points - Accessibility from anywhere is quite handy, however, the cloud advocates need to recognize that data ownership and security are equal to or more important than accessibility.
buggermenot said it best. Remote computing, properly done, is a far better (and free!) solution.
Tell me what exactly you want to do and why you think cloud computing is better. Yes, there are SOME applications where it makes sense to some degree.
Word processing? If I have a laptop and internet connection I have access to everything on my work computer. Why would I want someone else to store it for me? Hard drives are cheap. Backup systems are cheap.
Collaborative work: Ok, if it's collaborative work between different companies I can see using a third party as a database server if they're secure enough. If it's between people in the same company, just use the companies network.
Seriously, for most applications I use on a daily basis I do NOT want them to be handled by cloud computing. And many simply would not work under that model whether I desired it or not.
- by BNUX September 30, 2008 8:25 AM PDT
- I like his opinion. Is a good point of view with some very good arguments. I myself use some Cloud Computing. In the begin I was afraid because of security issues. But because of the easy access to that kind of products/services I begin to use. I just get lasy, I confess!
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (72 Comments)I think that kind of opinions is very important, never less to make us all to questions things. Some times we get lasy and get used to some tech and political solutions. So, I like his point of view, because make me think!!!