Cloud? My Bollocks!


Loading ....
 

How stupid to call a file-copy/replication method a ‘cloud’.

For pitys’ sake, why elevate a fundamentally simple principal with a buzz-term that little describes what actually happens?

Yeah, OK, I’m no stunning visual designer, but the diagram above shows what’s actually happening when you use a “cloud”.  You write files on your computer, and they get copied up to a server.  Then when you plug in another computer those files get copied there as well.  If you connect 5 computers they get copied 5 times – 6, if you include the “cloud” (hell, I hate using that term!).

It’s not a CLOUD for heavens sake, it’s just a sodding file-copying mechanism and – in my humble opinion – a pretty poorly concieved idea.

SIX copies of the SAME file??  Where in creation is that efficient, economic, or sane??

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not trashing the method.  I use “clouds” all the time, I find remote storage and local replication handy for my work.  They mean I don’t have to carry around external disks or loads of USB’s – or sometimes even a laptop.  But I don’t call them “clouds”.  I call them remote-storages.  Because THATS WHAT THEY BLOODY WELL ARE!

Can I crap on the misuse of terminology more?  Oh, go on then.

“Cloud’ to me suggests that my files are magically stored across an infinate number of machines all around the world.  Well – yes – they might be.  Mechanisms for effectively storing fragments of data in different locations is well established.  So THAT part of the process could possibly called ‘cloud’ storage.

But – honestly – you and I are simply having numerous versions of the same file copied around.

That’s inefficient.

One file, wherever, should be the aim, and the product of delivery from a so-called “Cloud” provider.

Bah.

 


RELATED PRODUCTS
Clickbank Ads
 
Share

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *