News on China's scientific and technological development.


FriedRiceNSpice

Senior Member
Hahaha. When you've no anwser to my fundamental point, throw insults.

For onlookers, my fundamental point remains the same: a company that outsources its IT to cloud servers takes a lot of extra risks. Parler's near-death experience proves this. All the hecklers here don't try to answer this point, because they can't.
You keep repeating the same thing without actually showing that Parler would not have been shut down if it was hosted on premise rather than the cloud. Other members have already pointed out there are multiple avenues through which the US government can shut Parler down, which completely invalidates your argument.

Do you seriously believe that it would be more difficult for Parler to be shut down by the US government if it had hosted in its own data centers?

Have you ever heard of megaupload.com?
 
Last edited:

vincent

Senior Member
Hahaha. When you've no anwser to my fundamental point, throw insults.

For onlookers, my fundamental point remains the same: a company that outsources its IT to cloud servers takes a lot of extra risks. Parler's near-death experience proves this. All the hecklers here don't try to answer this point, because they can't.

You know, it is ok to be clueless. The sad thing is there are multiple forum members who tried to educate you the in-out of cloud computing and we have tried to show you parler's experience has nothing to do with cloud, yet you refused to listen and learn.
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
"Cloud" is just a fancy world for someone else's computer.

IBM sold time on their mainframes to remote corporate companies before there even was an Internet.
Eventually when we got cheap personal computers we decided to dump that stupid expense.
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
You keep repeating the same thing without actually showing that Parler would not have been shut down if it was hosted on premise rather than the cloud. Other members have already pointed out there are multiple avenues through which the US government can shut Parler down, which completely invalidates your argument.

Do you seriously believe that it would be more difficult for Parler to be shut down by the US government if it had hosted in its own data centers?

Have you ever heard of megaupload.com?
You are only wasting everyone's time by repeating an argument that I've already refuted. I noted earlier that the risk of being shut down by some authority or ISP is about even between the in-house servers and the cloud.

A user of the cloud takes additional risks, among them the risk of being killed by the cloud provider itself -- as Parler's near-death experience should demonstrate to anyone.

And I can repeat Parler's lesson because none of you cloud worshippers have refuted it.
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
You know, it is ok to be clueless. The sad thing is there are multiple forum members who tried to educate you the in-out of cloud computing and we have tried to show you parler's experience has nothing to do with cloud, yet you refused to listen and learn.
Again you can't refute my argument (Parler's near-death experience).
So you throw insults once more, wasting everyone's time.
 
Last edited:

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
"Cloud" is just a fancy world for someone else's computer.
And someone else with a sword raised above your business's lifeline.


IBM sold time on their mainframes to remote corporate companies before there even was an Internet.
Eventually when we got cheap personal computers we decided to dump that stupid expense.
Major companies bought IBM's mainframes, despite the heavy cost (millions of dollars each then). Why do you think they did that? Hint: back then, American management was intelligent and sane.

Do you want some Chinese companies to die like Parler?
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member

Lol this guy clearly is told what to write. To use that analogy, Huawei holds the engines, the flight controls, the wings, the fuselage while Ericsson Nokia and Qualcomm hold what could be considered amounting to the ailerons and maybe a stabiliser or two. While Huawei ALSO hold the interiors.

5G core tech (not carriage and seats) was 90% Huawei dominated and only recently have Ericsson and Nokia "caught up" somewhat. While they've started building networks on non Chinese tech about a year ago, China started OVER two years ago. One year in computing and telecomm tech isn't negligible. While a combined, Swedish, American, Japanese, and Korean effort in 5G tech overall amounts to more than what Huawei itself holds today. This wasn't the case when 5G first became commercially available. Huawei dominated 100% then 99% then 90% and now it still holds a good half of the core tech patents. We're not talking about interiors.

Notice how sneaky that piece of writing was. Totally ignoring the fact that Western 5G tech is heavily based on Chinese ones which arrived first and was the basis for western 5G tech. In fact plenty have been "appropriated" by those organisations and we don't call it stealing or forcing.

While that piece suggests that Huawei doesn't have any core 5G tech, the opposite is true. Just because western organisations have finally got their niche and developed enough to build networks, doesn't mean China wasn't in that position long ago. How else could China have superior 5G networks 2 years ago and still have vastly superior 5G networks today? Without using a single piece of Ericsson or Nokia tech?

How come western nations were nearly two years late? Lied about having 5G networks when it started (AT&T) when they really only still had 4G? How come western nations still have primitive 5G networks while China's been using 5G to conduct off-site mining, off-site construction, remote farming, and transport management experiments nearly two years ago? lol

Someone should correct that journalist.

Huawei DID hold absolute 5G technical advantage from three years ago to maybe just recently. It still holds at least 5G tech parity because western 5G tech only recently caught up to where Huawei was about two years ago. These are facts. Just because Huawei today doesn't "hold technical advantage" in most commercial 5G fields, doesn't mean it still doesn't dominate it in reality. While Ericsson might be a 20%, Nokia a 10%, Samsung qualcomm 20% for chips etc, Huawei being a 50% and being able to do things these guys can't, doesn't mean western nations will have to use Huawei. It's simply stating that in the domain of commercial application which China had two years ago, western corps have finally caught up in those select fields and so Huawei has no technical advantage because they can do it all without using Huawei. The other side of the coin is that Huawei is still about two years ahead and the 5G network in China is at least a year ahead both in technology, capability, and distribution. South Korea though has greater density and better distribution than China.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
This is what western supremacists and exceptionalists love to do to fool their stupid masses (most western people are technically illiterate and quite suggestible when it comes to non white people).

They use cheap analogies that are totally incorrect and they WILL NEVER provide the details or clear reasoning. It's reduced to Huawei holds the seats and trolleys while we have the important stuff. Sure... and that's why to this day, western nations are struggling to build 5G networks while China using Chinese tech have started doing that over two years ago. How was that done if Huawei only have seats and trolleys? How come China's 5G tech today is still vastly superior to western nations?

China is already testing 6G telecomm technologies and have done so before Feb 2021 when the western supremacists like to claim they've finally built their core tech that doesn't require Huawei, a whole two years after Huawei debacle. How come they considered using Huawei when it was the only option back then? Sounds like Huawei provided the entire plane down to the screws. Now that they've finally got their first products ready, check out the arrogance and the slandering. All of a sudden, Huawei the one that offered the entire plane can only make the seats and trolleys now that they have their own lol.
 

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
By Richard Windsor's definition, just because western and Japanese and Korean corps can service their (western) basic commercial 5G needs, Huawei no longer "holds technical advantage"... this is like saying just because China could build a piloted flying machine by itself 50 years ago, Boeing no longer holds technical advantage. This is a more accurate analogy of what he's doing. It's pathetic and laughable.

It's as pathetic and laughable as Chinese "analysts" saying just because China has test flown C919 many times and can build every subcomponent itself or rely of Chinese components if western ones are banned for whatever reason, that means Boeing and Airbus hold no technical advantage over AVIC's commercial aviation department.

Huawei not only still hold plenty of 5G technology that are not patented because patenting means nothing and they will reverse engineer as much as anyone behind because they're capable of it, Huawei is involved in 6G tech R&D along with 6G tech testing. Many things aren't patented because there is literally no reason to reveal even a path via patents. If they discover the paths, they own it anyway and will do as they please just like China does... as long as they are capable ;) I mean you can hold India's hand along the way and they've still screw up basic reverse engineering but if you give the Americans a flying saucer... They're chances of discovering paths are even lower if patents showing hints aren't even provided.

The best and leading tech are never patented. That's for boring commercial stuff. There are no patents for most exotic technologies for a variety of reason. What Huawei has allowed to become patented have mostly been trivial stuff, this is true and partly why it's more than two years ahead of already advanced Ericsson and Nokia in 5G domains. Every player has been working on 5G for the good part of a decade. What Huawei allows into the public domain in the form of patents are disposable trivial "trolleys and seats" part of 5G. The technical lead it held and still holds over other players is revealed in the facts that China enjoyed the benefits and fruits of 5G commercial more than two years ago and still enjoy a vastly superior network and superior 5G capabilities.

The commercial 5G offers in the west are still hopeless compared to what's available in South Korea and China. Especially considering how basic commercial 5G should be these days.
 

Top