5 ms·
I got and email about this few weeks back (I must have signed up to the list at some point) but I was put off by two things. > We've already preserved 100,000+
by kingosticks 5y ago
I got and email about this few weeks back (I must have signed up to the list at some point) but I was put off by two things.
> We've already preserved 100,000+ files, and are quite reliable at this point.
"quite reliable" doesn't cut it for a paid service for me, even a new one.
My second issue, and I might be wrong about this, is that there's no way to share photos with someone who isn't a (paying) ente user.
- vishnumohandas 5y ago> "quite reliable" As an engineer, I shy away from using superlatives. But sorry, I now understand that this could have been phrased better. Thank you for pointing it out. > no way to share photos Correction, the receiver can be on the free plan.
- quaintdev 5y agoI am guessing he is expecting to share pics with users who did not sign up. It maybe a one time thing. But I think you need user logged in because of encryption.
- vishnumohandas 5y agoThat’s right. We could generate public URLs that contain the decryption key of the album within the URL fragment. But as an encrypted storage provider, we would like to ship this only after we're reasonably confident that there are checks in place to prevent abuse.
- kingosticks 5y agoYes, this is what I meant and the solution you describe is what I'd be looking for. So +1 from me!
- spuz 5y agoente looks interesting to me, but I would like to have the feature to share an album with anyone who has the link. I guess that is not so easy to do though as it would require creating a decrypted copy of the photos in the album that you wish to share which would take extra time and space.
- vishnumohandas 5y agoThe client that is sharing the album could append the decryption key of that album to the URL fragment, such that it never reaches the server. For example: albums.ente.io/{albumID}/!#{decryptionKey} Now on the receivers side, the client can use this `decryptionKey` to decrypt and render the photos.
- StavrosK 5y agoI think this is a mismatch between UK English where "quite" means "extremely" and US English where "quite" means "mostly".
- kingosticks 5y agoI'm British and to me "quite" here means "mostly" i.e. not entirely. Could well be a misunderstanding but it should be made clearer as this data is priceless.
- StavrosK 5y agoDoesn't "quite good" mean "great"? That was my impression, at least.
- taneq 5y agoThis is classic British understatement. It doesn't literally mean 'great', but depending on how it's said it can be interpreted as such.
- oneeyedpigeon 5y agoNot really, but it depends on context. The nuance is often difficult to detect when written. When spoken, a phrase like "quite extraordinary" or "quite brilliant" would usually be a superlative, as you suggest, but it would usually be indicated by emphasis on the "quite". And the adjective itself already has to be quite strong, so "quite good" will never really mean "great".
- andybak 5y agoAnother Brit. It's all in the context. "Quite" can easily be a strong superlative but it relies on shared understanding between the parties so I wouldn't depend on that interpretation. It's fine in a spoken context as tone can add sufficient extra meaning. If you can guarantee the listener is expecting an informal register then it probably also comes across as a superlative. "I met him and he's quite unpleasant" would usually imply he was a total c*nt.
- 5y ago