I agree that Canonical's cloud storage service was perhaps a bit half-baked.
I think they hoped to become the Ubuntu version of iTunes or google play
with their music store and subscription services.
The trouble is that everyone already has a music source and all they needed
was a little bit of
Stuart Conner wrote:
They are virtually indistinguishable services, for my purposes anyway. The
only difference is the name of the synced folder.
Pretty much. U1's sync mechanism was designed to closely resemble
Dropbox's and it uses the same storage backends.
I myself am in the process of
Richard Pieri wrote:
So I'm giving AeroFS a spin.
Uses client-side encryption. Good.
Uses closed-source, proprietary software. Nullifies the first point.
None of my data is ever stored on their servers...
If the encryption is done properly, and can be verified, it doesn't
matter where your
Tom Metro wrote:
Uses closed-source, proprietary software. Nullifies the first point.
Here's their Github repo:
https://github.com/aerofs
It's certainly not their entire code base but it's more than most of
their competitors provide.
Encryption and certificates are OpenSSL.
If the
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.comwrote:
Dropbox for example does the encryption properly but they can and do hand
over the keys to law enforcement upon request.
If you can hand over keys, you're not doing it right !
--
Bill Ricker
Bill Ricker wrote:
If you can hand over keys, you're not doing it right !
Doing it right is not the same thing as being trustworthy.
--
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.comwrote:
Doing it right is not the same thing as being trustworthy.
any cryptography with keys held by third-parties breaks Ben Franklin's
dictum that a secret can be kept by 3 only if 2 are dead.
(sadly the current CA
Bill Ricker wrote:
any cryptography with keys held by third-parties breaks Ben Franklin's
dictum that a secret can be kept by 3 only if 2 are dead.
Which is a matter of trust rather than of implementation. Like I said.
(sadly the current CA PKI is little better, you'd be shocked whose CA
Richard Pieri wrote:
Tom Metro wrote:
If the encryption is done properly, and can be verified, it doesn't
matter where your bits are stored.
Well, yes, actually, it does. Dropbox for example does the encryption
properly but they can and do hand over the keys to law enforcement upon
Richard Pieri wrote:
Tom Metro wrote:
Uses closed-source, proprietary software. Nullifies the first point.
Here's their Github repo:
https://github.com/aerofs
Excellent. They certainly didn't make that easy to find on their site.
(Though admittedly I didn't spent much time looking.)
If you
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.comwrote:
Which is a matter of trust rather than of implementation. Like I said.
I am not talking Implementation but Requirements.
Deaf ears.
Quite.
--
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro
Uses closed-source, proprietary software. Nullifies the first point.
Disagree. Both windows and mac are closed-source OSes, which provide standard
crypto libraries to
Tom Metro wrote:
If you are syncing files among machines that are all within your
firewall, you may not even care about file encryption. Wire encryption
may be adequate, and even that may not be needed.
BYOD means anyone can sniff the wire, and WiFi everywhere is tantamount
to letting the
13 matches
Mail list logo
