Cloud? IoT? How to start

On 3/24/2017 8:04 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> IoT and Cloud is just naming some random collection of protocols that
> have existed before.
>
> There is a cartoon/meme you can find out there
>
> 	"There is no cloud
> 	 it is just somebody else's computer"
>
> Which is why I refer to IoT as LoT (Lawyer of Things)

I know someone who is marketing a product where much of the processing 
is done in the "cloud".  He feels that somehow this will make the 
software immune from ever needing to be ported as OS revisions change 
and hardware is upgraded.  Really?  Is that really possible?  At some 
point won't the environment hosting software require maintenance no 
matter what your host is (assuming they upgrade on a regular basis)?

-- 

Rick C

On 25/03/17 19:35, rickman wrote:
> On 3/24/2017 8:04 AM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> IoT and Cloud is just naming some random collection of protocols that
>> have existed before.
>>
>> There is a cartoon/meme you can find out there
>>
>>     "There is no cloud
>>      it is just somebody else's computer"
>>
>> Which is why I refer to IoT as LoT (Lawyer of Things)
>
> I know someone who is marketing a product where much of the processing is done
> in the "cloud".  He feels that somehow this will make the software immune from
> ever needing to be ported as OS revisions change and hardware is upgraded.
> Really?  Is that really possible?  At some point won't the environment hosting
> software require maintenance no matter what your host is (assuming they upgrade
> on a regular basis)?

The key is to have everything specified in terms of
an API, and to program against that API and only
that API. A good API is far more valuable than any
implementation.

It can make it a lot easier, /provided/ the architecture
and implementation are /very/ carefully thought through.
The poster child proof-of-concepts are the telecom system
and Amazon Web Services.

None of which changes the concept that cloud processing
is the triumphant re-invention of timesharing systems,
and that it means your data and processing is done on
machines owned by another company.

I remember the relief people felt when IBM PCs arrived,
because then they were no longer held hostage by the
timesharing bureaux.

rickman wrote:
> On 3/24/2017 8:04 AM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> IoT and Cloud is just naming some random collection of protocols that
>> have existed before.
>>
>> There is a cartoon/meme you can find out there
>>
>>     "There is no cloud
>>      it is just somebody else's computer"
>>
>> Which is why I refer to IoT as LoT (Lawyer of Things)
>
> I know someone who is marketing a product where much of the processing
> is done in the "cloud".  He feels that somehow this will make the
> software immune from ever needing to be ported as OS revisions change
> and hardware is upgraded.  Really?  Is that really possible?  At some
> point won't the environment hosting software require maintenance no
> matter what your host is (assuming they upgrade on a regular basis)?
>

Beats me. If it's an interpreted language, then perhaps - although
they seem to have more tools thrash.

-- 
Les Cargill

Don Y wrote:
> On 3/25/2017 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Don Y wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2017 7:41 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>> On 2017-03-23, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to start learning the modern paradigm of IoT and Cloud.
>>>>
>>>> IoT:
>>>>
>>>> Take a bunch of small devices with no need for internet access.
>>>> Add
>>>
>>> IoT doesn't require access to The Internet.  Remember, *an* internet
>>> just refers to them being able to talk (i.e., to each other).
>>
>> It's generally clearer to refer to "an inTRAnet".
>
> The Internet is AN internet.  What you call an intranet is likewise.

Look, I'm just trying to get terminology that is inherently
clearer. You can call it food if you want to. :)

An inTRAnet can often lack a backhaul to the larger world. Since
that fits what you described...

<snip>

-- 
Les Cargill

On 2017-03-25, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know someone who is marketing a product where much of the
> processing is done in the "cloud".  He feels that somehow this will
> make the software immune from ever needing to be ported as OS
> revisions change and hardware is upgraded.

Right, and at home he's got a paddock full of unicorns that fart
rainbows.

> Really?  Is that really possible?

As long as the hosting company never changes anything (or goes out of
business), hardware never fails, software never needs security
updates, protoocols never change, requirements never change, and so
on.

IOW, no.

> At some point won't the environment hosting software require
> maintenance no matter what your host is (assuming they upgrade on a
> regular basis)?

Yes.

You're just pushing some of the maintenance work off on sombebody else
and paying them to do it.  It's still fallible appplications running
on fallible OSes on fallible hardware that's all built and maintained
by fallible people.  [The _hope_ is that "those people" are better at
it than "these people".  In some cases that may be true.  I'm not
convinced it's usually possible to predict which cases those are.]


But now you've made yourself even more dependent on network
connections -- which are (surprise!) fallible.

--
Grant

On 3/25/2017 1:20 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:04:31 -0000, Paul
> <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <ob09tq$qj2$1@dont-email.me>, pozzugno@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> I'd like to start learning the modern paradigm of IoT and Cloud.  My
>>> first impression is that they are "empty words" without a precise
>>> meaning: you can fill the "word" as you want.
>>>
>>> I want to start from a real simple application.
>>> I have some Internet-connected embedded boards that I want to control by
>>> remote with my smartphone connected to Internet.
>>
>> Before you go ANY further read this short article and think about
>> security first
>
> Over here Siemens is advertising their household appliances by the
> remote control features :-)

I think the problem with IoT is that vendors are JUST pitching it
as "remote control".  IMO, there's very little "value added" for most
devices if you just allow the user to control it from a distant location.

(Do you really need to control your washing machine, dishwasher, irrigation
system, coffee maker, etc. from afar?)

But, the real "value added" requires a fair bit more development effort
and "selling"/marketing.

E.g., instead of letting me monitor video from my home via an (insecure! :> )
web app at some remote location, why not have some "smarts" in the
cloud service whereby *it* is monitoring the video and alerting
me to motion detected in the frame?  Instead of letting me turn on
the water for my rose bushes (but NOT the cactus) from my office, why
not make note of the weather in my neighborhood and decide that their
transpirational losses are likely to be excessively high, today, and
turn the water on *for* me?

I.e., provide intelligent AGENTS instead of just a glorified DynDNS service.

> After all, the Stuxnet exploit was first used on Siemens systems :-)

On 3/25/2017 1:25 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Don Y wrote:
>> On 3/25/2017 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/2017 7:41 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-03-23, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to start learning the modern paradigm of IoT and Cloud.
>>>>>
>>>>> IoT:
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a bunch of small devices with no need for internet access.
>>>>> Add
>>>>
>>>> IoT doesn't require access to The Internet.  Remember, *an* internet
>>>> just refers to them being able to talk (i.e., to each other).
>>>
>>> It's generally clearer to refer to "an inTRAnet".
>>
>> The Internet is AN internet.  What you call an intranet is likewise.
>
> Look, I'm just trying to get terminology that is inherently
> clearer. You can call it food if you want to. :)

Adding yet another term to finely resolve between different types
of IoT installations doesn't really make things any clearer.
     "Will you be wwanting to connect these devices to The Internet,
     Mr Smith?  I need to know if you want IoT devices or iOt devices..."

> An inTRAnet can often lack a backhaul to the larger world. Since
> that fits what you described...

On 25/03/17 20:20, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:04:31 -0000, Paul
> <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <ob09tq$qj2$1@dont-email.me>, pozzugno@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> I'd like to start learning the modern paradigm of IoT and Cloud.  My
>>> first impression is that they are "empty words" without a precise
>>> meaning: you can fill the "word" as you want.
>>>
>>> I want to start from a real simple application.
>>> I have some Internet-connected embedded boards that I want to control by
>>> remote with my smartphone connected to Internet.
>>>
>>
>> Before you go ANY further read this short article and think about
>> security first
>
> Over here Siemens is advertising their household appliances by the
> remote control features :-)

Today's heavily advertised "solution looking for a problem":
https://ring.com/

On 3/25/2017 11:49 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 25/03/17 20:20, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:04:31 -0000, Paul
>> <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ob09tq$qj2$1@dont-email.me>, pozzugno@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to start learning the modern paradigm of IoT and Cloud.  My
>>>> first impression is that they are "empty words" without a precise
>>>> meaning: you can fill the "word" as you want.
>>>>
>>>> I want to start from a real simple application.
>>>> I have some Internet-connected embedded boards that I want to control by
>>>> remote with my smartphone connected to Internet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before you go ANY further read this short article and think about
>>> security first
>>
>> Over here Siemens is advertising their household appliances by the
>> remote control features :-)
>
> Today's heavily advertised "solution looking for a problem":
> https://ring.com/

Actually, there have been several "news stories" (typ. "filler" pieces)
here involving this product.  Likely because it generates video (which
is always a boon to TV broadcasters) and is usually sensational
(folks stealing packages off front porches, attempted home invasions, etc.)

Of course, really only applies to a very small portion of the population
(or residences).  And, probably relatively easy to defeat when/if it becomes
more widely used (e.g., wear a mask, whack it with a baseball bat, approach
from "off screen", jam wireless, blind with overbright/laser light source,
interfere with home's internet connection, etc.)

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 10:39:50 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 3/24/2017 8:03 PM, George Neuner wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:29:59 -0700, Don Y
>> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Does your automobile *need* a radio?  heater?  etc.?
>>
>> Many cars *do* need the radio ... to perform ignition key/fob code
>> verification.  Pull the stereo in the new car and see if it still
>> starts 8-).
>
>I'm not sure *where* the hardware and software functionality for
>the fob-related features resides (haven't purchased a workshop manual,
>yet; I've been forbidden from tinkering with it until the warranty
>expires!  :> ).

Nothing per se to do with "wireless" fobs.  

Many vehicles that have coded ignition *keys* cannot be started if
their radio is damaged or removed.  Most auto manufacturers now have
some kind of ignition lockout system - but some of them place the
circuitry in the stereo system.  GM and Honda in particular are well
known for this, but they aren't the only ones.

George