Default group

[Jordon Bedwell]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Nicolas Michel
<be.nicolas.michel at gmail.com> wrote:
> To be honnest I never gave a try to Ubuntu One, probably for bad
> conservative reasons. I will try it. But I still feel that even if you're
> right that pushing things into the cloud make things simpler, there are
> still some flaws :

Most of these flaws are always subjective, except when it comes to
security, since UbuntuOne still does not have encryption (from last I
heard) it's not a viable solution for people who need to backup secure
documents, and it comes at a cost too since AmazonS3 now supports
built-in encryption without the need of a 3rd party source.  It comes
at even more of a cost when people realize that s3fs is not hard to
use at all.  I don't know why Canonical or Ubuntu or whoever owns it
does not see these problems but whatever, I'm not their CTO.

> - what if we don't have access to internet and only want to share on the

Then you share the folder via LAN while still allowing UbuntuOne to
Sync.  Ubuntu does not prevent you from accessing the folder at all,
or doing what you want with it, except renaming it, you do have to
play a little bit of filesystem trickery to rename it as a normal
user.

> - what with DLNA ? Are users needs to be technical guys to be able to use.

What has DLNA got to do with normal file storage? It's not content
hosting.  Unless they started with it recently and went CDN which
would be pretty amazing considering they have no support for things
like the WD Live, Sony/Samsung/LG Blueray or others but a quick Google
search suggests they are not a content provider.

> - of course I think about the speed. To come-back on my earlier exemple in a
> gaming LAN : what if I want to share some Gigs of data to others in the same
> LAN? It can't be done through Ubuntu One I guess? Although technical
> solutions exists to do it (and really the most simple seems to me webdav - a
> pretty good solution I think but until now it's usage never really
> took-off).

Speed is more or less on your end, if Canonical is smart they will
geo-host via AWS (that is unless they build their own infrastructure
then you would hope they still zone.) If they are on AWS they have
access to a pipes bigger by 10x if not more than anything you could
get for less than 10-50K (1-50K realistically depending on the type of
servers they get) a month unless you are in KC (or North California)
and manage to convince Google to make your area a Fibrehood.

Nobody is stopping you from sharing "gigs" of data though.  If you are
suggesting using it for storing games and what-have-you so called
"live-data" then that's on you because no storage service like Ubuntu
one is designed for that sort of thing, that requires an entirely
different stack design, one that thinks about what happens between
point a and point b and not one that only wants you to make it to
point b.  People often assume that servers are the same, they are not.