an ominous comment

[grarpamp]

Trying to support cloud with argument of better tech is one thing.
However tech doesn't really counter the arguments John makes.

Echoing them...

"Cloud" is every bit as much suspect in those various regards.
Foisted upon ignorant IT management who bathe themselves in the
cool-aid and false prospect of liability offloading. Pre positioned
by IT job and education system requireing "certifications" funneling
football jocks into IT instead of natural talent for sysadmin.
Supported by rent seeking and constant churn of failed contracts
into new contracts... locked up, tied down, paid to change and held
hostage until freed. Insulated by mandatory contractual disclaimers
to privacy, hacking and negligience. Perpetualized by the continual
offering of dependency teat for suckage. Huge disjoint between
interests. Your key to your door does not fit theirs. Extrafunded
by datamining and exploited by all manner of "partners" on the
backside.

It's also interesting to see insurers popping up around IT risk.
Yes, insurance can add needed diligence and rigor. But it also
indicates an industry finally throwing its hands up and saying "Ok,
we've hit the limit of reasonably attainable security".

Good sysadmins/coders are worth their weight in gold. And even if
only as advisors, you want them working directly for you, not on
the other side of some cloud contract.

Yes, the first "cloud" models were in fact an entire corporate HQ
full of thin client xterms [today: browsers] connected to the
datacenter down the hall.

Analysts and admins might say that how [new] tech and resources are
utilized is the factor, not where it's housed. Cloud is utilising
and making good offers in particular use cases, because it's free
to speculate on its own VC dime. But there are tangible caveats and
risks there that don't always equate to a dire need to scrap what
you already have down the hall. Look before you leap.