Not being williingto take a risk on anything that does not provide any value is not a case of fear, it is a manifeatation of common sense.
Why in the world should I invest money in a system that offers no benefit to my organization while also having a number of potential risks? That is not the slightest bit logical, is it? Just because others who are not in a similar situation do something does not make it a good choice for me.
And Besides all of those reasons, not following the crowd aqnd not using conventional methods is the main reason that my business is rewarded for solving problems for others.
@Willaim- Most companies are afraid to take risk of moving their data to cloud, I feel they should first move less confidential data and ensure they have backup simultaneously locally. Eventually they could migrate the rest of it when they feel it's safe.
It's true that the cloud has many benefits. For many, having a choice during the transition would be helpful.
It's not fear as much as lack of information that leads to people reject working in cloud based applications. If companies could provide seamless transitions, great. But most don't. I'd love to go back to an older, non-cloud based, version of itunes. I can't. I have no options and the cloud based version isn't as easy to navigate.
I'm rejecting it not out of fear but out of frustration.
Jordan, submissions come from all over and so do responses. And translation is not always possible, since some languages seem to have words for concepts that are not found elsewhere.
And as for the unanticipated misfortune, consider the destruction of the world trade center. Nobody associated with any sort of IT could have anticipated that, but it happened and a lot was destroyed forever. So unanticipated disasters, in a manner a bit similar to unanticipated business happenings, can't always be avoided. And in some cases only the perpetrators are guilty of doing anything wrong.
So while I see a few potential business changes that would suddenly cause users of the cloud some problems, that does not mean that a lot of folks won't benefit from using it, at least for a while.
There was a song back about 1960 titled "That's the way it goes", and one line fits here fairly well: "Where it ends nobody knows,(but if it does), That's the way it goes." Sorry that I have no clue about who sang or produced it, but it gt played a lot around the Detroit area at the time. It would be interesting if anybody else can recall any more about that song. It must have related to something that was important at the time, I guess.
By translation I mean on the way from my inbox to being posted on the page. I am a native English speaker. :)
I do think it's important for cloud companies to have some sort of very visible part of the Terms of Service that explicitly details what happens in the event of a permanent service outage (company going under, etc). I don't know of any who do, but I think it would help at least somewhat in assuaging people's concerns over "what if".
To your point about unanticipated failure modes; as it was famously put by a former defense secretary; "There are known knowns, and there are known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns". I think that cloud companies should plan for as many failure modes as they can, and be very communicative with their users about what their plans are for those failures.
Users, on the other hand, should be forgiving if an unknown failure mode comes up, or if a known failure mode occurs and the first few stages of disaster control aren't the most visible ones.
Software as a service is like a pact of trust between the user and the developer - more so than ever before. A user trusts the developer with their livelihood, and the developer trusts the user with the same.
It benefits everyone if we collaborate on solving these problems before they arise, and if/when they do, we try to stay as calm as possible and work towards a mutually beneficial solution.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.