4 ms·
I don't really see the point. We have had temperately file hosting services for years. Moreover I find the fact that it requires JS and multiple 3rd party resou
by snakeanus 9y ago
I don't really see the point. We have had temperately file hosting services for years. Moreover I find the fact that it requires JS and multiple 3rd party resources in order to work properly extremely annoying (all the other services that I know of do not require that).
I think that it would be better if Mozilla focused more on their important projects, such as Firefox, Servo and Rust.
- ape4 9y agoDoing a quick google, the other temporary file hosting services have much smaller limits. Firefox has a better reputation than these others (for confidentiality, etc)
- snakeanus 9y agoI found these two temporary file hosting services that have similar or bigger limits (1GB was the one that Mozilla had, right?): https://dropfile.to/ https://dropfile.to/ - 1GB (requires js, not third party however. It also has a nice API) https://lewd.se/ https://lewd.se/ - 5GB That being said, there are many more permanent file hosting services which one can use instead.
- ape4 9y agolol, I probably wouldn't use lewd.se for business ;)