5 ms·

It's funny, I was reading old Joel on Software posts the other night and stumbled across this one: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html http://w

It's funny, I was reading old Joel on Software posts the other night and stumbled across this one: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html From the essay: "The hallmark of an architecture astronaut is that they don't solve an actual problem ... they solve something that appears to be the template of a lot of problems. Or at least, they try. Since 1988 many prominent architecture astronauts have been convinced that the biggest problem to solve is synchronization. ... Jeez, we've had that forever. When did the first sync web sites start coming out? 1999? There were a million versions. xdrive, mydrive, idrive, youdrive, wealldrive for ice cream. Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just not a killer application. I'm sorry. It seems like it should be. But it's not." I immediately thought of dropbox. It appears, to some degree, it is a problem and some people do care. Like Chris said, its the execution and people that made the difference.

jurjenh 16y ago
I think it is one of those problems that most people don't run into until they do - for example, you're suddenly having to work from 2 locations on the same code base - then try to find some means of keeping both in sync... The first attempts I had at it ended up pretty much as a "too hard, not worth the effort" solution. I guess the pain threshold was not quite high enough for enough people, but now with a brilliant solution, a lot of people will revisit it, and with the multiplying numbers of web devices, it will become more of an issue - so it was more of an issue of tackling the problem at the right time.
wladimir 16y ago
It was one of those problems that everyone was solving in their own way. Either through shared folders, shared gmail accounts, mailing attachments, passing around USB sticks, or putting everything into a version control system. There was no single solution that was both convenient, compatible across devices and platforms, and useful for all the usecases. Dropbox nailed that.
- fedd 16y ago
  our school teacher has a mail.ru account the password for which is known by all the parents. if we're ill, we go there and see the homework :) anyone may change the password eventually as many people are not that internet savvy, i am always afraid of it she should use dropbox, google docs or have a mailing list, but i don't know how to say that. she knows only web mail as it's around for decades...
nadam 16y ago
Yeah, I think Joel was right and wrong. He was right because there are architecture-astronauts who overdesign things that they don't understand yet. He was wrong, because the mistake of architecture astronauts is not that they want to solve a template to a lots of problems. Solving a template to a lots of problems can be a huge business. Think of the personal computer. Think of MS Excel. Think of Oracle. It is just very hard to get these things right, because it is very hard to see the market for these generic products in advance. Also generic things are very technology heavy usually, so hard to convince investors. (Maybe I am just defending myself here, because I am also working on a generic application which is about helping businesspeople to access/maintain/query their data intuitively. (Like Excel just with a bit more constraints (with relational db. server backing))).
- BerislavLopac 16y ago
  I think the main problem with the architecture astronauts is that they are trying to nuke a cockroach. In other words, they are trying to find an overly wide and generic solution while all they have is a specific instance of a problem in a particular implementation they need to design for.
  - nadam 16y ago
    Yes. Solving the generic problem is usually much harder than an actual problem. Only try to solve the generic problem if you really think that there are huge benefits of it, and really know what you do, and you can take huge risks. (Like creating MS Excel instead of creating a special accounting software.)
- yesbabyyes 16y ago
  Maybe I am just defending myself here, because I am also working on a generic application which is about helping businesspeople to access/maintain/query their data intuitively. (Like Excel just with a bit more constraints (with relational db. server backing)) Have you looked at QlikView? Sounds similar.
  - nadam 16y ago
wisty 16y ago
I don't think dropbox really syncs (i.e. merges documents). It just stores versions, right? Architecture astronauts tried to build generic diffs and merges, on top of rich documents. Think SVN for Word docs. Then they though about metadata, like bug-reports and other actions. Then you can host the bug report (and the project management system, and the wiki) on top of the synchronization architecture. Dropbox, at its core, just keeps your files and 30 days of history.
- crocowhile 16y ago
  What do you mean? Dropbox syncs files amongst the computers you own and that is the most used feature I think. It is a sync. (In fact before using Dropbox I was using rsync over ssh.)
  - wisty 16y ago
    Alice has a file. Bob has a copy. They both edit it, and want the edits to be synchronized (by some sort of smart merge). That's the over-engineered syncing solutions Joel is talking about. Not just rsync. Sorry about the semantics ... I should have been clearer.
  - js2 16y ago
    It syncs, but punts on conflict resolution.
    - epochwolf 16y ago
      Which is correct behavior, trying to implement generic file synchronization is doomed to fail.
      - wisty 16y ago
        Yes, but that doesn't stop people trying.

jurjenh 16y ago

I think it is one of those problems that most people don't run into until they do - for example, you're suddenly having to work from 2 locations on the same code base - then try to find some means of keeping both in sync... The first attempts I had at it ended up pretty much as a "too hard, not worth the effort" solution. I guess the pain threshold was not quite high enough for enough people, but now with a brilliant solution, a lot of people will revisit it, and with the multiplying numbers of web devices, it will become more of an issue - so it was more of an issue of tackling the problem at the right time.

wladimir 16y ago

It was one of those problems that everyone was solving in their own way. Either through shared folders, shared gmail accounts, mailing attachments, passing around USB sticks, or putting everything into a version control system. There was no single solution that was both convenient, compatible across devices and platforms, and useful for all the usecases. Dropbox nailed that.

fedd 16y ago
our school teacher has a mail.ru account the password for which is known by all the parents. if we're ill, we go there and see the homework :) anyone may change the password eventually as many people are not that internet savvy, i am always afraid of it she should use dropbox, google docs or have a mailing list, but i don't know how to say that. she knows only web mail as it's around for decades...

nadam 16y ago

Yeah, I think Joel was right and wrong. He was right because there are architecture-astronauts who overdesign things that they don't understand yet. He was wrong, because the mistake of architecture astronauts is not that they want to solve a template to a lots of problems. Solving a template to a lots of problems can be a huge business. Think of the personal computer. Think of MS Excel. Think of Oracle. It is just very hard to get these things right, because it is very hard to see the market for these generic products in advance. Also generic things are very technology heavy usually, so hard to convince investors. (Maybe I am just defending myself here, because I am also working on a generic application which is about helping businesspeople to access/maintain/query their data intuitively. (Like Excel just with a bit more constraints (with relational db. server backing))).

BerislavLopac 16y ago
I think the main problem with the architecture astronauts is that they are trying to nuke a cockroach. In other words, they are trying to find an overly wide and generic solution while all they have is a specific instance of a problem in a particular implementation they need to design for.
- nadam 16y ago
  Yes. Solving the generic problem is usually much harder than an actual problem. Only try to solve the generic problem if you really think that there are huge benefits of it, and really know what you do, and you can take huge risks. (Like creating MS Excel instead of creating a special accounting software.)
yesbabyyes 16y ago
Maybe I am just defending myself here, because I am also working on a generic application which is about helping businesspeople to access/maintain/query their data intuitively. (Like Excel just with a bit more constraints (with relational db. server backing)) Have you looked at QlikView? Sounds similar.
- nadam 16y ago

wisty 16y ago

I don't think dropbox really syncs (i.e. merges documents). It just stores versions, right? Architecture astronauts tried to build generic diffs and merges, on top of rich documents. Think SVN for Word docs. Then they though about metadata, like bug-reports and other actions. Then you can host the bug report (and the project management system, and the wiki) on top of the synchronization architecture. Dropbox, at its core, just keeps your files and 30 days of history.

crocowhile 16y ago
What do you mean? Dropbox syncs files amongst the computers you own and that is the most used feature I think. It is a sync. (In fact before using Dropbox I was using rsync over ssh.)
- wisty 16y ago
  Alice has a file. Bob has a copy. They both edit it, and want the edits to be synchronized (by some sort of smart merge). That's the over-engineered syncing solutions Joel is talking about. Not just rsync. Sorry about the semantics ... I should have been clearer.
- js2 16y ago
  It syncs, but punts on conflict resolution.
  - epochwolf 16y ago
    Which is correct behavior, trying to implement generic file synchronization is doomed to fail.
    - wisty 16y ago
      Yes, but that doesn't stop people trying.