June 16, 2010 at 17:42What are they afraid of in cloud computing?
Recently there was a post about what is bad in cloud computing. The post was not very, but there was unspoken.
So what would be more correct to talk about, what are they afraid of in cloud computing?
Now, substantial resources are being spent on servicing the company's IT infrastructure. 35-40 thousand per month - this is the minimum. Usually, amounts from 60 to 100+ thousand. This is not only communication services, electricity, but staff salaries. (Of course, the size of the companies is different, and someone may have millions of expenses). The staff objectively feels that if tomorrow everyone switches to chromos / ipads (or their heirs) and works in Google Docks, then what will they be paid for? This is an underlying sensation that bites any sysadmin slightly. Skype "cannibalizes" not only VIP, but also the skills of specialists in asterisk / office exchanges. The Google Docks are still looking scary, but they are striving for an increasingly decent state. The Internet is becoming more accessible, you want to wrap it less and less through proxies, access control systems, traffic accounting systems and all other signs of a corporate network. A company for 20 people will be perfectly served by a SOHO piece of iron, and possibly just a WiFi access point with laptops around. In total, IT is one printer plugged into the network port of the same WiFi. On computers skype, googldock and webmail. ... Do you really think that you need a system administrator?
Fearfully. The technologies that seemed complicated and required High Knowledge were reduced to the level of an ordinary home user ... and they worked. Active Directory, Exchange, sharepoint, local machine offices, ISA, WSUS server, squd, own DNS server, MXs, group policies ...
Suddenly it turns out that all this does not solve the tasks that IT users pose. Very Important servers (at least two) with domain controllers are completely unnecessary in order to log in to Google ... Deploying server consolidation and virtualization tools is useless in the absence of servers in the company.
Of course, I did not say about the second component of most companies - this is an accounting system. 1C in accounting and sales managers, some kind of software specific to the field of activity of the company. ERP, CRM, strange hybrids that were made ten years ago ... And they instinctively grab it - you can’t take the accounting database to other people's servers, there are too many important things ...
However, more on that below. If the office is quite ready looking in the clouds and the web, then with accounting everything is much worse.
The main concern of any company is disclosure. Most often they are afraid of banal things: disclosure of not very good gas turbine engines, floating out of a muzhlezh with VAT. They may be afraid of the withdrawal of the customer base or some other information that is truly a trade secret.
This is the fear of managers, not sysadmins.
The fears can be divided into:
1) Psychological rejection (I’m here, but the data is there, no one knows where)
2) Fear of dishonesty on the part of employees of an external organization
3) Fear of dishonesty of the organization (these are two different things)
4) The feeling of greater data availability for all kinds of departments
5 ) Question: they will go bankrupt there, but what should we do?
The first and second paragraph, rather, are vestiges (dishonesty of an employee of another organization, if there is an agreement with this organization, has economic compensation), but the rest of the fears are quite objective.
Between the company's office and servers are networks of several organizations, kilometers of wires and equipment of unknown quality, located in unknown conditions. And of course, the thunderstorm of all wired networks is an excavator. One awkward move - and installers for a week of entertainment.
The dangerous ones are quite serious: if the trunk channels have proper redundancy, then the "last mile" is usually the most vulnerable spot. In part, this can be compensated by the reservation of Internet channels (for example, via an overhead line or alternative input), but in fact it may well turn out that both services will not work. And the office stops completely. Absolutely. Neither see the mail archive, nor dial the document. Worse than this can only be deenergizing the building.
Another serious concern with the driver’s hand: there is no one to shift responsibility to. The lack of a person with a salary and a head responsible for the operation of the infrastructure is very confusing. "Own" he is still "his", and not someone else's uncle. Probably, this, and not all of the above, is the main obstacle to the development of an "office without an administrator." The driver’s hand usually has worse knowledge in the field than the specialist, and he needs to have a specialist to solve sudden and difficult to predict questions.
If there is a person (with a salary) it is not very clear why the clouds are necessary. Anyway, more than half of the IT costs are salaries, so everything else is shit-packing, fitting the variation into "asked for an increase for the new year or not."
Another (sometimes the main) reason for refusing to even consider other options is the presence of their software, which is uniquely tailored for a certain infrastructure. Reinforced concrete argument: "works, do not touch." An even more serious argument: redoing is more expensive than maintaining.
And if the total resource consumption is more expensive than your system administrator and your own server? How can I predict this? And if it turns out to be suddenly, in the middle of the workflow, at the time of company development? And if we get a lot of money post factum?
SaS is even worse. Evil bourgeoisie want to take money from us not once, but constantly. A long-cherished dream of any software company is to sell software every time it is used. A long-cherished dream of any software company is to sell software, but not give away even binary code, so that they can’t be pirated.
In addition to common concerns, there is a specific question: how can we predict the consumption of resources of our servers?
How legitimate is it to store IP data in other people's clouds (see ФЗ-152)? ( Slonoed )
There is probably only one answer to all this: time will tell. In some places, the development of online services will answer some concerns, in some it will be understood "otherwise it is impossible." In some companies that adhere to the “work - do not touch” policy, they will simply lose their competitiveness due to the large overhead costs of maintaining the infrastructure.
It’s probably right to say, not even about the clouds, but about the transfer of infrastructure from home-made to that provided by commercial companies. Perhaps even for free. (How many business emails per email?)
Will online win? I do not know. I see certain trends, in some places already winning. In some places I see people who started a business without seeing the whole complex and cumbersome infrastructure, the heir of the 90s. On the other hand, I see companies in which "everything is fine" ...
So what would be more correct to talk about, what are they afraid of in cloud computing?
Staff reduction
Now, substantial resources are being spent on servicing the company's IT infrastructure. 35-40 thousand per month - this is the minimum. Usually, amounts from 60 to 100+ thousand. This is not only communication services, electricity, but staff salaries. (Of course, the size of the companies is different, and someone may have millions of expenses). The staff objectively feels that if tomorrow everyone switches to chromos / ipads (or their heirs) and works in Google Docks, then what will they be paid for? This is an underlying sensation that bites any sysadmin slightly. Skype "cannibalizes" not only VIP, but also the skills of specialists in asterisk / office exchanges. The Google Docks are still looking scary, but they are striving for an increasingly decent state. The Internet is becoming more accessible, you want to wrap it less and less through proxies, access control systems, traffic accounting systems and all other signs of a corporate network. A company for 20 people will be perfectly served by a SOHO piece of iron, and possibly just a WiFi access point with laptops around. In total, IT is one printer plugged into the network port of the same WiFi. On computers skype, googldock and webmail. ... Do you really think that you need a system administrator?
Fearfully. The technologies that seemed complicated and required High Knowledge were reduced to the level of an ordinary home user ... and they worked. Active Directory, Exchange, sharepoint, local machine offices, ISA, WSUS server, squd, own DNS server, MXs, group policies ...
Suddenly it turns out that all this does not solve the tasks that IT users pose. Very Important servers (at least two) with domain controllers are completely unnecessary in order to log in to Google ... Deploying server consolidation and virtualization tools is useless in the absence of servers in the company.
Of course, I did not say about the second component of most companies - this is an accounting system. 1C in accounting and sales managers, some kind of software specific to the field of activity of the company. ERP, CRM, strange hybrids that were made ten years ago ... And they instinctively grab it - you can’t take the accounting database to other people's servers, there are too many important things ...
However, more on that below. If the office is quite ready looking in the clouds and the web, then with accounting everything is much worse.
Foreign servers for our database
The main concern of any company is disclosure. Most often they are afraid of banal things: disclosure of not very good gas turbine engines, floating out of a muzhlezh with VAT. They may be afraid of the withdrawal of the customer base or some other information that is truly a trade secret.
This is the fear of managers, not sysadmins.
The fears can be divided into:
1) Psychological rejection (I’m here, but the data is there, no one knows where)
2) Fear of dishonesty on the part of employees of an external organization
3) Fear of dishonesty of the organization (these are two different things)
4) The feeling of greater data availability for all kinds of departments
5 ) Question: they will go bankrupt there, but what should we do?
The first and second paragraph, rather, are vestiges (dishonesty of an employee of another organization, if there is an agreement with this organization, has economic compensation), but the rest of the fears are quite objective.
And the whole life of the office depends on the accuracy of the excavator ...
Between the company's office and servers are networks of several organizations, kilometers of wires and equipment of unknown quality, located in unknown conditions. And of course, the thunderstorm of all wired networks is an excavator. One awkward move - and installers for a week of entertainment.
The dangerous ones are quite serious: if the trunk channels have proper redundancy, then the "last mile" is usually the most vulnerable spot. In part, this can be compensated by the reservation of Internet channels (for example, via an overhead line or alternative input), but in fact it may well turn out that both services will not work. And the office stops completely. Absolutely. Neither see the mail archive, nor dial the document. Worse than this can only be deenergizing the building.
And who to call on the carpet?
Another serious concern with the driver’s hand: there is no one to shift responsibility to. The lack of a person with a salary and a head responsible for the operation of the infrastructure is very confusing. "Own" he is still "his", and not someone else's uncle. Probably, this, and not all of the above, is the main obstacle to the development of an "office without an administrator." The driver’s hand usually has worse knowledge in the field than the specialist, and he needs to have a specialist to solve sudden and difficult to predict questions.
If there is a person (with a salary) it is not very clear why the clouds are necessary. Anyway, more than half of the IT costs are salaries, so everything else is shit-packing, fitting the variation into "asked for an increase for the new year or not."
The legacy of ancestors
Another (sometimes the main) reason for refusing to even consider other options is the presence of their software, which is uniquely tailored for a certain infrastructure. Reinforced concrete argument: "works, do not touch." An even more serious argument: redoing is more expensive than maintaining.
Pay us more than once, but all the time
And if the total resource consumption is more expensive than your system administrator and your own server? How can I predict this? And if it turns out to be suddenly, in the middle of the workflow, at the time of company development? And if we get a lot of money post factum?
SaS is even worse. Evil bourgeoisie want to take money from us not once, but constantly. A long-cherished dream of any software company is to sell software every time it is used. A long-cherished dream of any software company is to sell software, but not give away even binary code, so that they can’t be pirated.
In addition to common concerns, there is a specific question: how can we predict the consumption of resources of our servers?
Legislation
How legitimate is it to store IP data in other people's clouds (see ФЗ-152)? ( Slonoed )
Answers on questions
There is probably only one answer to all this: time will tell. In some places, the development of online services will answer some concerns, in some it will be understood "otherwise it is impossible." In some companies that adhere to the “work - do not touch” policy, they will simply lose their competitiveness due to the large overhead costs of maintaining the infrastructure.
Will the clouds win?
It’s probably right to say, not even about the clouds, but about the transfer of infrastructure from home-made to that provided by commercial companies. Perhaps even for free. (How many business emails per email?)
Will online win? I do not know. I see certain trends, in some places already winning. In some places I see people who started a business without seeing the whole complex and cumbersome infrastructure, the heir of the 90s. On the other hand, I see companies in which "everything is fine" ...