Re: G Drive

2012-05-18 Thread Andrew Z
Zxq,
i pretty much agree with all points you mentioned .
Re : privacy - my employer actively utilizes amazon as a distribution layer
only.
From consumer perspective , i was thinking to use it for 2 reasons

To have a single and easily accessible destination for junk files. And as a
backup for important files.
I do agree that Google as a backup is far from ideal (exactly  for reasons
you stated). Yet been an gmail and android user already it seems
convenient.
 On May 18, 2012 4:24 AM, zxq9 z...@zxq9.com wrote:

 On 05/18/2012 04:46 PM, zxq9 wrote:

 On 05/18/2012 01:17 PM, Andrew Z wrote:

 ...a chance to mount (rw) the Google Drive ...


 Also, I didn't mention this because I thought it was obvious, but you
 don't exactly mount the Google Drive. Its basically like a
 feature-deprived version of Dropbox with an even worse privacy policy that
 only integrates with Google products. It is absolutely not available
 offline -- and actual syncing has to be a deliberate choice, every time, so
 actually saving to a local drive you own for real is not automatic or even
 reasonably hassle-free. So this sort of sucks.

 If you've got no experience whatever with this sort of thing these are
 probably the points you are curious about from a consumer's point of view.



Re: G Drive

2012-05-18 Thread Christopher Tooley
Thought I would chime in here.

 Also, I didn't mention this because I thought it was obvious, but you 
 don't exactly mount the Google Drive. Its basically like a 
 feature-deprived version of Dropbox with an even worse privacy policy 
 that only integrates with Google products. It is absolutely not 
 available offline -- and actual syncing has to be a deliberate choice, 
 every time, so actually saving to a local drive you own for real is not 
 automatic or even reasonably hassle-free. So this sort of sucks.

If you don't have a google drive client, this is correct. This means all linux, 
currently, but google drive on Mac and Windows appears to be almost exactly 
like dropbox, save for any differences in licensing issues - sync looks to me 
to be automatic on the mac, and is as painless as dropbox.

 If you've got no experience whatever with this sort of thing these are 
 probably the points you are curious about from a consumer's point of view.

Dropbox works fantastically with Scientific Linux, and it's been around for a 
while now. There's also sparkleshare, which is uses git to coordinate between 
your own computers. Dunno how well that works for people, but it's open source 
and doesn't look like it requires a central server ala google drive or dropbox.

Sparkleshare:
http://sparkleshare.org/
Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/home

Indeed, you cannot mount a google drive like a network drive (i.e. no mount -t 
googledrive), and I suspect once a linux client is released it will be similar 
in scope and methodology to dropbox, as the mac and windows clients seem to be.

-Chris

Re: G Drive

2012-05-18 Thread zxq9

On 05/19/2012 04:07 AM, Christopher Tooley wrote:

Thought I would chime in here.


Also, I didn't mention this because I thought it was obvious, but you
don't exactly mount the Google Drive. Its basically like a
feature-deprived version of Dropbox with an even worse privacy policy
that only integrates with Google products. It is absolutely not
available offline -- and actual syncing has to be a deliberate choice,
every time, so actually saving to a local drive you own for real is not
automatic or even reasonably hassle-free. So this sort of sucks.


If you don't have a google drive client, this is correct. This means all linux, 
currently, but google drive on Mac and Windows appears to be almost exactly 
like dropbox, save for any differences in licensing issues - sync looks to me 
to be automatic on the mac, and is as painless as dropbox.


Maybe we were given a stunted version to test, but on Google's own OS 
and Mac OSX we had to deliberately drag  drop each file that we wanted 
saved to the local computer for access offline. Sync as a concept was 
merely that the contents of the drive space are visible from anywhere, 
but the data is on Google's machines, *not* actually synced to the local 
drive.


In other words local possession and sync of your files is an illusion 
that fails once the network connection drops.. or Google randomly closes 
your account like this: 
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/why-you-shouldnt-trust-google-or-any-cloud-service-with-your-data-update/13860 
because a TOS validation algorythm put you in the wrong category. (Or 
decides the applications infrastructure you've used to manipulate your 
content constitutes something bad and wipes your stuff: 
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-bans-kde-applications-deletes-photos-uploaded-with-them/1766 
)



Dropbox works fantastically with Scientific Linux, and it's been around for a 
while now. There's also sparkleshare, which is uses git to coordinate between 
your own computers. Dunno how well that works for people, but it's open source 
and doesn't look like it requires a central server ala google drive or dropbox.

Sparkleshare:
http://sparkleshare.org/
Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/home


These are interesting services, but I think they miss the point of one 
data view and don't even begin to address architectural integration -- 
which is what would really fix data sync problems. Actually, everyone 
has tossed the concept of one data view at the architecture level 
(yeah, when was the last time you read architecture and data sharing 
in the same sentence?) because if people have control over their own 
data then nobody can charge rent from them on their own stuff; whether 
that's by reselling consumers' existences and whatever they feel like 
from their data store (Google), selling tie-ins (Dropbox), or actually 
charging rent from them on their own stuff (Microsoft and Amazon).