The Cost of Technological "Freedom"

News, discussion and questions about technology and computers, whether broadcast-related or not.

The Cost of Technological "Freedom"

Postby jon » Wed May 25, 2011 7:29 pm

Editor's Corner
The Cost of Technological "Freedom"
Deb Shinder, Editor
WXPnews
Vol. 1, #70 - May 24, 2011 - Issue #480
http://www.wxpnews.com

In the past, I've written about how open source software such as Linux isn't necessarily free - especially for businesses, which tend to use commercial versions such as Red Hat for which you pay a pretty penny for support. That usually generates responses informing me that claims regarding the "free" aspect of open source aren't referring to the monetary cost but to the freedom to modify the source code if you want. And there's always someone who says it's all about "freedom from the Microsoft monopoly." It seems "free" is one of those words that has many different meanings, but we usually associate all of them with good things. Well, unless you make your living creating intellectual property in a world where a growing number of people believe that "information wants to be free."

Over the years, I've often heard from readers who declare the goal to be "free from Microsoft" and that still puzzles me - especially today, when there are plenty of alternatives. Why not just use whatever the best tool is for the job you want to do (and your budget), regardless of who makes it? I use Microsoft on the desktop because that's what works best for me there. I use an Android phone because that's what (currently) works best for me. I've tried using Apple products in the desktop, tablet and mobile space and they just don't work as well for me as the others, but I have friends who swear by them. That's fine. I have friends who love to spend their vacations hurling down a mountain in the snow perched on a couple of thin slats, dodging trees and hoping not to break a leg, too. I don't understand the appeal of that, either, but to each his/her own.

I recently stumbled across a blog post by Fred Wilson, "a VC in NYC," who wrote about how happy he was to have freed himself from his Windows desktop by moving everything to the cloud, using Gmail, Google Apps/Docs, Dropbox, and such, which he accesses from a Macbook and an Android phone. He still uses Word, Excel and PowerPoint for some files but is hoping to be "completely rid of them" soon:
http://www.wxpnews.com/BCYUAA/110524-My-New-Setup

Now, this particular declaration of independence isn't from Microsoft so much as it's from "the desktop." And that's what really confuses me. When desktop computing evolved out of the old model, mainframe computing, it certainly wasn't seen as enslaving. Rather the opposite; it was recognized as empowering, giving each individual user control over his/her applications and data. With a PC on your desk (or later, in your lap), you no longer had to be at the mercy of the mainframe, dependent on it to deliver applications and data to your dumb terminal. In fact, the evolution of computing during its first fifty years (from the first generation room-sized or bigger mainframe behemoths of the 1940s to the microcomputers of the 1980s that morphed into the personal computers of the 1990s) was all about giving individual computer users more control. And control over what you do is the very basis of freedom.

The pendulum started swinging the other way, though, sometime in the 1990s. IT departments wanted to take back the control they lost when desktop systems replaced the mainframes and minicomputers where all the programs and data had lived before. In the business environment, this made sense. For security and productivity reasons, companies need to be able to apply standard policies and have authority over what software users run and keep company data stored in a central location. The client-server model seemed to offer the best of both worlds, giving the company control where needed without taking the computer power away from the users. And not to be cynical or anything, but it also provided an opportunity for software vendors (Novell, Microsoft, even makers of open source software such as RedHat) to make big money off server operating systems, for which they could charge hundreds or thousands more than for a desktop OS - and then require each of those desktops that accessed it to pay for a client access license, too.

But there's more to it than that. Companies wanted to do more than just exert control; they also wanted to save money. Software and hardware vendors saw a new opportunity: sell people on the idea of "thin clients." Users would have much less powerful computers on their desktops, which would cost less (or you could even use older systems you already had sitting around). This is possible because all the actual processing takes place on the server. Sounds great - except that to do this, you need to set up very powerful (and expensive) multi-user servers to deliver all those desktops. And you need the latest and greatest version of the server OS to get the best functionality. And you might also need third party solutions and/or consultants to configure it all, since deployment could be a bit complex. There I go, being cynical again.

But hey, there's an easier way. Instead of hosting all this in-house, you could turn to a company that would do it all on their own systems and just "rent" the apps to you; your users access them over the Internet. To old timers, it sounds suspiciously like the old mainframe time-sharing model, but to younger folks, it seemed new and innovative. They tried it in the late 1990s, calling themselves Application Service Providers (ASP). Maybe that name had too much of a sting, as it never caught on. Or maybe it was because fast, reliable Internet bandwidth was too expensive. In the 2000s, they changed the name to Software as a Service (SaaS) and for the most part switched to web-based programs. That was a bit more successful, especially for targeted proprietary software such as that delivered by Salesforce.com. Now we're calling it Cloud Computing and it's being hailed as the way to "free yourself" from the desktop.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. I'd like to think we won't get fooled again, but I'm not betting on it. Cloud computing does have some advantages. It's great for those who are just too busy (or too lazy) to deal with the general maintenance and troubleshooting that sometimes go along with using a full-fledged desktop machine. In that respect, it's sort of like renting a house rather than buying; you don't have to worry about the inevitable tasks of finding and paying for a plumber when a pipe bursts or keeping the roof repaired - the landlord takes care of all that for you (or is supposed to). There is no denying that the cloud is about convenience. If your applications all live in the cloud, if your data is all "out there" somewhere, you can access it no matter where you go, from any computer - yours or someone else's. That's important to many people in the mobile world we live in today. It's a lot easier than having to copy the data to your laptop's hard drive or to removable media and take it with you. It's easier than setting up a VPN connection back to your home computer. It's the easier possible way to have anytime, anywhere access to everything (when it works).

The cloud might even be about saving you money. It depends on what you need and the timeframe over which you need it. Renting a home isn't just less of a hassle; it can also be less expensive than buying one, especially if you move often. When you factor in maintenance costs and taxes and insurance and down payments and closing costs and so forth, you might save a little or a lot. Cloud computing could save you money, too, especially if you use a cheap netbook to access free services and apps. And many folks will be able to do what they want that way. Others will find that they need more than the free services offer. For example, you can store your files on Dropbox for no charge - well, if you have no more than 2 GB of files. A more realistic storage capacity, 100 GB, will cost you twenty bucks per month. That's $240 per year - which you could have used to buy a hard drive on which you could store 3 TB of data locally.

What about security? Cloud vendors will tell you that your data is more secure in the cloud than on your own network because they have economies of scale that let them institute the very best security protections that would be too expensive or too difficult for you to use at home or in your small business. It might be true that your data in the cloud has stronger encryption and is better protected from random hackers (although not everyone is convinced of that). However, if you're worried about law enforcement or other government agencies snooping, remember that your contract with your cloud provider probably tells you that if they get a subpoena or maybe just a request from the government, "all your base are belong to us." (Note: If you don't get it, that's okay, but please don't write and tell me that quote is grammatically atrocious). And yes, yes, I know - if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't care. Unless you do.

All in all, the advantages of cloud computing aren't insignificant. But freedom - I just don't see that as one of them. Still, going back to our housing analogy, some people consider renting to be something that frees them from the responsibilities of home ownership. Others feel far more free living in a house they own, where they don't have to ask someone else's permission to paint the walls purple if they want, and they can choose whether to replace the carpet with the cheap, ugly stuff that will be worn out again in a couple of years or put in granite tile that will withstand almost anything. I guess it's just a matter of perspective.

I'm reminded of a line from an old Kris Kristofferson song: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." If I had nothing important to lose, I might put it all in the cloud. But I do, so I don't think I'll "free" myself from the desktop anytime soon. Oh, I'll use the cloud where appropriate, for its convenience and when it's cost effective. I don't have any desire to completely free myself from cloud computing, either. I really do want the best of both worlds, and I get that by maintaining residence in each.

How about you? Do you long for a day when you can be completely free of the desktop? Have you, like Mr. Wilson, already attained that goal? If so, have you found it to be all that you dreamed it would be, or do you sometimes get nostalgic for the past?
User avatar
jon
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 9256
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Edmonton

Re: The Cost of Technological "Freedom"

Postby jon » Wed May 25, 2011 7:32 pm

I am posting this, not because I agree with it, but because previous articles from this family of publications have served to spark some thought and discussion. Admittedly, I'm a sucker for articles that have some historical perspective, especially given the large number of technology articles that sound like they were written by someone who just discovered computers in the last couple of years.
User avatar
jon
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 9256
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Edmonton

Re: The Cost of Technological "Freedom"

Postby PMC » Thu May 26, 2011 9:44 am

jon wrote:I am posting this, not because I agree with it, but because previous articles from this family of publications have served to spark some thought and discussion. Admittedly, I'm a sucker for articles that have some historical perspective, especially given the large number of technology articles that sound like they were written by someone who just discovered computers in the last couple of years.


I have an Atari 520ST in storage, that works perfectly, but comes with no web browser :tail

Use what works for you is the rule, because the technology will change, as will the needs.
PMC
 


Return to Computer & Technology News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 90 guests