3 ms·
The main argument against that is that it hasn't happened yet. This idea is just so obvious and stupid simple that it boggles the mind that nobody has really d
by zmmmmm 16y ago
The main argument against that is that it hasn't happened yet.
This idea is just so obvious and stupid simple that it boggles the mind that nobody has really done it. You can look at all the major players and they actually all have deliberately crippled half-implementations. For example SkyDrive should be a Dropbox killer, but for inexplicable reasons MS has never made it so you could just 'mount it as a drive' and thus it is nearly entirely useless. The trivial work it would require for MS to do that and the wildly useful properties of having that feature can only mean that MS has deliberately decided to cripple it. Gdocs is the same - in theory you can shove anything into your gdocs account and get it out again. But Google, who could so easily do it have never released a utility to mount that space as storage.
I'm really curious about why every player is half doing this and then stopping short. It can't possibly be that they are all too dumb to see how useful it would be - it can only be that they see significant risks or negative consequences in doing so.
- dstein 16y agoYou pretty much nail it. But that it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. From recent news, I am fairly certain all 3 (G,MS,A) have big plans on the table for balls-out cloud-everything infrastructures. Apple is the only one making it obvious with their new datacenters and the iTunes cloud rumors. Google is rolling out a cloud filesystem along with ChromeOS. Microsoft, well, they'll probably stumble along like Google and Apple's retarded brother. The computing industry, as a whole, is undergoing a massive shift, and I'm afraid that really innovative companies like Dropbox have simply provided the template by which the filesystems of the future will operate.