With all these cloud storage providers like Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive, etc. Will we at some point start buying personal computers without storage?
I believe at some point people would, I don't know if I would. With the usage of Chromebook's and lite laptops that depend on the cloud for most of the work it definitely looks like its trending there. Maybe if they made a 'dev' lite laptop I'd be sort of interested.
They do have some storage, sure, but it's there mostly to bootstrap for online operation. I have been running diskless nodes for some time (no storage media at all, netboot all the way), and IMHO we're getting to the point where it could be practical to do that even with a Chromebook.
Got it. Yeah the idea of a no local storage world sounds interesting. Haven't taken the time to sit down to think about what that implies, like what can we build in that world that couldn't have existed otherwise.
1963. Teletype Model 33, e.g., terminals. VT100, X Windows (xterm), Windows TS/Citrix/Remote Desktop are extensions to these.
If you want to do things without storage, you become completely dependent on a low-latency network to perform and receive operational transformations. If you have some storage, cached/disconnected operation becomes possible given additional conflict resolution strategies. In practice, most office desktops can be replaced with centralized virtualization terminals to shared computing resources.
Ultimately though, the answer is never because each instance "it depends." There are many, many use-cases requiring local storage and absent central network access. And, becoming too ubiquitously-dependent on an illusory presumed infallibility and reachability of internet access is a recipe for disaster.
Like centralised computing-power and peripheral displays, centralised storage is highly dependent on the network always being up. Without the network there's no storage, so no data, no apps, no work.
Whether the networks can be dependable enough is the critical factor. I think that it won't be dependable enough.
When companies lose millions due to an unexpected network outage, they will soon come back to insisting on local storage.
As a person living in a place with little to no internet, I can assess that I don't see any reason to depend on central societies and fast internet speed to use my computer as normal.
Here, we usually try to own as much as we can, and only rely on services when there's no other accessible alternative.
8 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 25.1 ms ] threadIf you want to do things without storage, you become completely dependent on a low-latency network to perform and receive operational transformations. If you have some storage, cached/disconnected operation becomes possible given additional conflict resolution strategies. In practice, most office desktops can be replaced with centralized virtualization terminals to shared computing resources.
Ultimately though, the answer is never because each instance "it depends." There are many, many use-cases requiring local storage and absent central network access. And, becoming too ubiquitously-dependent on an illusory presumed infallibility and reachability of internet access is a recipe for disaster.
Like centralised computing-power and peripheral displays, centralised storage is highly dependent on the network always being up. Without the network there's no storage, so no data, no apps, no work.
Whether the networks can be dependable enough is the critical factor. I think that it won't be dependable enough.
When companies lose millions due to an unexpected network outage, they will soon come back to insisting on local storage.
Here, we usually try to own as much as we can, and only rely on services when there's no other accessible alternative.