Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 155 posts

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#81

Post by minot »

Afforess wrote: post #74
cs702 wrote: post #38

I'm so happy to see this. As Bruce Schneier (who runs an open WiFi network at home) explains, "if my computer isn't secure on a public network, securing my own network isn't going to reduce my risk very much."[1] The same is true for corporate applications (and devices like printers). If they're not secure on a public network, securing the corporate network won't reduce their risk that much: they're still exposed to…

There are other, valid reasons to not run a public access point. Not wanting neighbors to steal your bandwidth, run a TOR node off it, or host illegal content, for example. All of these activities could get you removed from your ISP, and even taken to court. While you could probably prove your innocence in court, I can not imagine why taking the risk for absolutely no personal benefit is worth the risk. I don't reall…

This law needs to change. An Internet connection isn't a gun. Just because somebody uses my Internet connection to do something illegal, I didn't do anything illegal.

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#82

Post by ef4 »

superuser2 wrote: post #76
sixdimensional wrote: post #72

I wonder how far this really extends into their network and how ipv6 is related. In principal it sounds really good to me. I realize this is mostly about access to corporate applications, but how much further could this approach go? Thinking out loud, if I suddenly removed the firewall perimeter security from my network, moved security to devices/servers directly, dropped my NAT, switched to ipv6 with all publicly ro…

>can now have an publicly routable/addressable IP in ipv6 Almost no one can actually route "publicly routable" IPv6. When it becomes a standard feature of DSL/cable, maybe.

Your information is out of date. Every T-Mobile subscriber with a modern Android device on LTE has a fully-working, native ipv6 address. And somewhere between 30% and 50% of Comcast subscribers already have native dual-stack ipv6.

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#83

Post by scribu »

eloisant wrote: post #78
stephengillie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few workplaces are fond of remote workers. The major reason a lot of people remain employed is so they have a purpose to wake up, leave their houses, and spend the day occupied by the relative comfort of an office building, surrounded by reasonably-intelligent coworkers, as a faux-family. And it's a slap in their face that you don't want to spend your time basking in their physical proximity.

You can wake up, leave your house and go to a confortable office building surrounded by people working in the same industry by going to a coworking space. As a remote worker I actually want to have this routine, meet people, this is why I go to a coworking space. The benefit of remote work is that you can have much more choice in the company you work for, without having to move to SF/NY/London/Paris/ .

> The benefit of remote work is that you can have much more choice in the company you work for

That would be true if most companies allowed remote work. In my experience, only a few do. Even fewer have a "remote first" culture, where you don't miss important discussions if you're not in the office.

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#84

Post by Touche »

passive wrote: post #28
munificent wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't like workers who always work remotely, but periodically working from home (or the bus, or hotel, or coffeeshop, or the lobby at the auto mechanic, etc.) for a day is common for all employees.

Fair enough, but that still limits potential employees to a certain physical proximity to Google offices. While there are a number of those, and I aim to bring one here eventually, it is still a limitation.

But why would anyone not be willing to leave their family, friends, and life behind and move to one of the most expensive cities in the world in order to work at Google? Isn't work important to you?

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#86

Post by mynameisvlad »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #67
mynameisvlad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, of course it's their own datacenters. They're not going to be putting their corporate data in a competitor's data center. That said, they could be leveraging new things in their Google App Engine cloud, which would actually make it "the cloud" as people refer to it.

The funny thing is, they expect everyone else to put their corporate data in their datacenters! Google has an extremely one-sided view of where data should go. (In all cases, directly to their servers.)

Do they, though? They expect everyone else to put their product in their datacenters. I'm sure they'd like it if others also put their company data in (more revenue, after all), but I wouldn't say that anything they have offered is really pushing for the corporate data in the cloud aspect. I'd say Amazon is more aggressive on that side with things like WorkSpaces and WorkDocs.

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#87

Post by scuba7183 »

minot wrote: post #81
Afforess wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other, valid reasons to not run a public access point. Not wanting neighbors to steal your bandwidth, run a TOR node off it, or host illegal content, for example. All of these activities could get you removed from your ISP, and even taken to court. While you could probably prove your innocence in court, I can not imagine why taking the risk for absolutely no personal benefit is worth the risk. I don't reall…

This law needs to change. An Internet connection isn't a gun. Just because somebody uses my Internet connection to do something illegal, I didn't do anything illegal.

Pretty sure that's not how guns work either

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#88

Post by mbreese »

colechristensen wrote: post #66
mbreese wrote: post #65

One interesting question is: how many companies have enough public IP addresses to publish their applications to the internet? If you assume that there are multiple services and each one is hosted on their own server (or server farm), then you'd need many more public IP addresses. When we live in a world that is severely lacking free IPv4 space, how feasible is this? Or is this just a matter of pushing things from 10…

If it's http, it doesn't matter much. You can put a thousand different sites on one (or probably a few) IP and have a load balancer distribute the requests to the appropriate set of backend servers.

I'd like to agree, but I think you overestimate the sanity of many Enterprise IT designs...

It certainly would be helpful if there was a single point to handle the device-level authorizations, but again, many existing systems aren't necessarily designed to play well with others.

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#89

Post by mahyarm »

beachstartup wrote: post #39
mahyarm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communication and management overhead of remote workers is harder to do right. Like functional programming.

with modern software, it's only hard to do right if they're not at their laptop/workstation. which means they're doing some other shit other than working. our entire team is remote. it's really obvious when someone isn't at their computer. it's basically the only hard requirement of the job beyond the work product - be at your computer when you say you are going to be at your computer.

The thing is, the skill level required to properly manage remote employees, especially in a mixed remote / non-remote office is higher. When you are large corporation and have to start looking at employees in a statistical manner, you might choose 'no remote' because it's cheaper / more possible to find managers that can do 'no remote' vs. 'mixed remote'. There is almost no large company that is remote only right now.

It's the same reason why almost every company programs in blub vs. lisp, haskell, erlang, etc. The skill level of employee can be hard to find who can do those things. Companies already feel supply constrained with engineers, now imagine you add the haskell requirement and you need to hire 1000 of them.

Startups can leverage this disadvantage sometimes by not having a statistical management requirement and start with a foundational advantage. There is also the case of using haskell killing your startup although because of tool problems, and big companies being able to make small special R&D type teams that can use Haskell, so it's definitely a balance.

Re: Google Moves Its Corporate Applications to the Internet

#90

Post by bduerst »

icebraining wrote: post #80
Afforess wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other, valid reasons to not run a public access point. Not wanting neighbors to steal your bandwidth, run a TOR node off it, or host illegal content, for example. All of these activities could get you removed from your ISP, and even taken to court. While you could probably prove your innocence in court, I can not imagine why taking the risk for absolutely no personal benefit is worth the risk. I don't reall…

Do you think Schneier is ignorant of the risks?

>Certainly this does concern ISPs. Running an open wireless network will often violate your terms of service. But despite the occasional cease-and-desist letter and providers getting pissy at people who exceed some secret bandwidth limit, this isn't a big risk either. The worst that will happen to you is that you'll have to find a new ISP.

^ FTA. Not "ignorant", but more flippant. Not everyone has options when it comes to ISPs.

Post reply on HN