3 ms·

"I venture to guess that anyone using a system like this would keep their computers on anyways" - way to limit your potential user base. I use dropbox to sync d

by McP 16y ago

"I venture to guess that anyone using a system like this would keep their computers on anyways" - way to limit your potential user base. I use dropbox to sync data between my work computer (turned on during the day, off otherwise) and my home computer (turned on in the evening, off otherwise) so the service you propose is useless to me and likely many other people who care about power usage.

jasonlotito 16y ago
That's all well and good, but meaningless. Who cares? A few other people that you do. My service is useless for people without an internet connection. So, instead of just trying to point out problems, maybe you could point out a solution? As cool as dropbox is, it doesn't come close to solving the same problems. I don't know. I think I'd take your post more seriously if it was something more than complaining and actually contributed some thought to the conversation.
- McP 16y ago
  I apologise for the unnecessary harshness of my previous post. The service you propose would probably be very useful for some people. However the service would be fundamentally broken for people who turn off their devices or let them run out of battery or don't have an internet connection at the time they decide they want to access a particular file. Automatic syncing at the earliest possible opportunity (sync-on-save) is the best solution I can see.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > I apologise for the unnecessary harshness of my previous post. And I apologize for mine. It was far too early, pre-coffee, and I should know better. That being said, they aren't mutually exclusive services, however. And I did mention a push method as well. How this is accomplished could be as simple as a Dropbox method, maybe with a temporary store. Being able to easily grab any file on one machine from another machine without having to do anything different (open find, browse to directory, open file and have it sync-on-read) and not being reliant on the disk space available on a remote service is key. I'm not suggesting a dropbox like service would be useless. I can see the value in having an online store you can easily share with friends (something I wouldn't want my service as described handling, or at least, not in the default setting). Consider the context of the discussion: Dropboxing your entire computer. That's silly. Rather, Dropboxing selected files, and syncing everything else on reading. Together they could work. Edit: I realize now where the confusion might have arisen from, and why I think I answered it in my original post. I'm a moron. =) I did, however, answer it in response to a question here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1911813 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1911813 The idea of forcing a push was always in my head, but assuming people can read that is pretty poor manners on my part.

by McP 16y ago

jasonlotito 16y ago

That's all well and good, but meaningless. Who cares? A few other people that you do. My service is useless for people without an internet connection. So, instead of just trying to point out problems, maybe you could point out a solution? As cool as dropbox is, it doesn't come close to solving the same problems. I don't know. I think I'd take your post more seriously if it was something more than complaining and actually contributed some thought to the conversation.

McP 16y ago
I apologise for the unnecessary harshness of my previous post. The service you propose would probably be very useful for some people. However the service would be fundamentally broken for people who turn off their devices or let them run out of battery or don't have an internet connection at the time they decide they want to access a particular file. Automatic syncing at the earliest possible opportunity (sync-on-save) is the best solution I can see.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > I apologise for the unnecessary harshness of my previous post. And I apologize for mine. It was far too early, pre-coffee, and I should know better. That being said, they aren't mutually exclusive services, however. And I did mention a push method as well. How this is accomplished could be as simple as a Dropbox method, maybe with a temporary store. Being able to easily grab any file on one machine from another machine without having to do anything different (open find, browse to directory, open file and have it sync-on-read) and not being reliant on the disk space available on a remote service is key. I'm not suggesting a dropbox like service would be useless. I can see the value in having an online store you can easily share with friends (something I wouldn't want my service as described handling, or at least, not in the default setting). Consider the context of the discussion: Dropboxing your entire computer. That's silly. Rather, Dropboxing selected files, and syncing everything else on reading. Together they could work. Edit: I realize now where the confusion might have arisen from, and why I think I answered it in my original post. I'm a moron. =) I did, however, answer it in response to a question here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1911813 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1911813 The idea of forcing a push was always in my head, but assuming people can read that is pretty poor manners on my part.