Eh; I think to many of those for whom technical decisions matter, the fact that "The cloud" is just another new name for Mainframe+Terminal configuration; aka "Network Attached Storage + Network Attached Processing"
Sure, there are lots of times in which it really is useful to have data mirrored and backed up in an off-site location. Yes, there are times in which some computing tasks could really just run on somebody else's more powerful array of rented processors.
Sometimes there are client configuration models where having a dumb terminal that is little more than a monitor talking to a mainframe is a reasonable choice. Most of the time, it still makes more sense just to do the processing locally; which often is just going to cost less power overall; especially with the rise of ARM processors and the falling power-requirements of x86-64. It is very plausible to build a computing device these days where the screen itself will use far more power than the rest of the system components.
I really do feel sorry for anybody throwing all their eggs into the rechristened NAS+NAP computing models... since I'm not too entirely sold on the idea that they actually understand what is being offered... and in which usage scenarios NAS+NAP actually makes sense; especially on an Enterprise level.
// из каментов https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LinuxfoundationOrg/posts/9EH29JqeKzN
