You are missing the point.

Linux (or in general an operating system) is just a platform that companies use. Some companies may use windows products for good purposes. Other companies may use linux for less noble purposes and the fact that they use linux does not make them good.

An exaggerated analogy:
Just because a criminal uses linux to commit fraud does not make them a law-abiding citizen.

If a mad scientist builds a death-ray that runs nothing but Linux, then does that make it "right"?
If a dictator uses only Linux servers to house the country's database of dissidents or of his political rivals, does that make him good?

The point being made is that using the cloud to keep all your data is a bad idea, period. Regardless of which operating system the cloud runs on.
You seem to think that just because someone/some organization uses only Linux then whatever they do is good. You have an interesting sense of morality and ethics.

No, it doesn't, but why are you making this inappropriate comparison anyway? Google is a corporation, not a mad scientist, and your privacy is not as important as your life.

Again, dictators murder. Google uses your privacy to the benefit of FOSS; what's wrong with that?

Sometimes it is, like with MicROMEsoft Cloud apps. However, not with those Cloud apps that exist for the benefit of Linux.

No, I don't. There's still limitations, like someone can't just form an organization and kill MicROMEsoft employees (except for maybe Steve Ballmer himself) or use stolen money from MicROMEsoft to donate to FOSS. They also cannot use Linux to murder people. But I would shed privacy (which is only a mediocre issue) for the benefit of Linux any day.

Kids are so quick to give up privacy and freedoms. Sorry but that really pisses me off. Wait until the day comes, and it will, when that will kick them all in the butt.

Maybe schools should teach more about history and what happens when people loose privacy rights and freedoms. The worst has happened in the past and the worst can happen again.

Edit: Yeah I know. Bad things could never happen because of that (and those words and attitudes are also not new,) But watch and learn. Then of course a few generations will pass and the lessons will all be forgotten, again.

It isn't? Without privacy, there is tyranny. Why do you think that dictatorships everywhere attack privacy with a vengeance?

Well I wouldn't. Linux is a nice OS, but it is only an OS, and not worth the sacrifice of any of my rights.

Tyrannical dictators (like Kim Jong Il) attack privacy with a vengeance because they're bloodthirsty. Benign dictators (like Google or Jeremy Garcia) do it to help people (such as FOSS developers).

And I'm okay with that, because you have a right to an opinion.

Google isn't doing any of this to benefit Linux or FOSS, they're doing it to benefit themselves. They're a corporation, Kenny. Their motivation is still money. Using Linux is just their means to reach their objectives, nothing else.

If you think that privacy is such a petty issue then I guess your school isn't doing a very good job at delivering lessons from past events (or perhaps you're just not paying close enough attention in class).
If you really are interested in understanding why it's so important, especially in the digital age where privacy is so much harder to guarantee compared to say 100 years ago, read "Privacy on the line". It's a big eye-opener (at least it was for me).

Yeah yeah I saw it, but its empty. "Bla bla bla dictators attack privacy because they're bloodthirsty yadayada". No Kenny, they attack privacy because they are afraid of what the population they are controlling might be up to. The "dictators" (if you can even call them that) that head FOSS projects are in no way similar since members of the project can just up and walk away or make a fork.
Google is NOT this benevolent type of "dictator". They are motivated by money, and because of this if one day Linux is no longer profitable enough VS some other alternative then they won't have any problem dropping it.

You on the other hand didn't address any of my or other's points, you just skim over our comments and then post more crap or moan about being "criticized". We're trying to tell you there are plenty of good reasons why relying entirely on the cloud is a daft idea, but you just ignore them all and blunder forward. Did you even bother reading the preface or introduction of the book I mentioned?

It is asking me to *buy* the book!

And Google may not be benevolent, but it sure is benign for supporting Linux/FOSS *and actually releasing almost all their source code to full operating systems like Android and Chrome OS*.

This is not something (mic)Rome(soft) would do.

This is a wall of text... sorry, but hopefully interesting and thought-provoking.

I'll have to join the chorus that "the cloud" is a horrible idea. But before I give my reasons why:

Indeed, the link is to Amazon. At one time, Amazon may have allowed you to preview the beginning of the book, but I did not see a link for it now. In a bit of irony for this discussion, you can read the preface and introduction through Google Books. Though, I will admit, I only scanned to see that the headings for the preface and introduction were there. I did not verify that each page of both was included.

There is another book that, although fiction, might shed some light on the value of privacy. And I found it available online for free: George Orwell's 1984. It was required reading when I went through high school. I would be extremely surprised if it weren't still required. If you have read it Kenny, then I would hope that you can see the danger. The saying "knowledge is power" is very true. And many of your posts indicate you believe that if Microsoft had the chance, they would seize any and all power they could. Well, Google is amassing huge quantities of information (i.e. power). Much of it is being freely given by users, some of it is not (e.g. the story of wireless network eavesdropping). Also, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, has been quoted as saying that Google's policy on many things is to "get right up to the creepy line." So, you need to ask yourself, if you have a company amassing all this information/power and riding that "creepy line," what would it take to make them cross that creepy line, or better yet, "redefine" where the line is by pushing it back just a smidge?



Anyway, back to the cloud...
From a technical standpoint, it doesn't make sense. To access your data, (1) your computer must have an internet connection; (2) your internet service provider must be up-and-running; (3) the cloud service's internet connection must be up-and-running; and (4) the machine providing the service must be running. That's four points of failure. If any of which are unavailable, you cannot access your data. Of those four, only one of them is within your direct control to fix: your computer's internet connection. All the others are a complain-and-wait problem.

Contrast that with a local hard drive or a local network. There are similar points of failure, but they are all within your control. You can replace the network cable that failed, or the router, or reboot the file server, or take the hard drive out of the dead machine and transfer it to another working machine.

The complain-and-wait problem doesn't even take into account the inevitable situation where a service provider goes bankrupt. In some bankruptcy situations, the lights are turned off, the doors locked, and the equipment sold to recover what money is salvageable. What happens to your data then? So much for the touted "let someone else handle the backup/data protection" benefit of the cloud. Your data is gone and probably "wiped" by the new owner or, at worst, being cracked by persons of ill-repute. Or are you going to attend the "fire sale" to bid on the server(s) with your data? If you do that, what are the chances that some other user has the same idea? Whose data is more important/valuable?

Or better yet, how about a service provider that gets caught up in some sort of illegal activity? It may not be the provider doing anything illegal, but a user of the service. The authorities come in, seize the equipment as evidence and cart it off to the police station. Again, what happens to that data? The police sure aren't going to plug it in to let users have access. Also, the data on those machines will be getting a once-, twice-, thrice-over of encryption-breaking software to build the case against the alleged crook. So not only do you not have access to your data, but it's likely going to be seen by someone else. All of this because of the actions of one individual (who may not be guilty of anything). How many people do you think might be using those services? The law of probability will eventually catch up.

Of course, there's also the security issue. Your data is potentially exposed to anyone with an internet connection. You can't look at the provider's logs for unauthorized connection attempts to your account. The provider is also not going to disclose the number of attacks against their servers as a whole. You will be completely unaware of the threat level posed to your data. At least with a personal computer, you can yank the internet connection if you detect a serious threat.

I'll go to the cloud when my hard drive is pried from my cold, dead hands.

Mod Note: Why do so many of these threads need to include references to the KKK and other harmful organisations? While I accept it can be a useful shorthand way of saying "does running Linux make a harmful organisation less harmful" it is very inflammatory and makes an argument look very silly. Stop doing this and have fun conversations.

Yes, indeed, a few of us have had words with Kenny about that habit.

I have had it with this nonsense. Kenny's going to be the first one to be on my ignore list. Arguing with him is like arguing with a wall - might be done for hours, but I don't really see the point.

Dark_Helmet there is one more thing I would like to add to what you said. If all your data is online and ISP's are fighting for bandwidth caps, and some winning the fight, what happens if you use up your bandwidth limit? You have no way of accessing your data which is not on your computer but on others servers. Or you pay a lot more if you have the money. If you don't then you are just out of luck.