3 ms·
Not in out 5 year experience trying to use with GeneNetwork.org to share large and small datasets. IPSF is marketed as simple but is complex—or even over-engine
by robwwilliams 3y ago
Not in out 5 year experience trying to use with GeneNetwork.org to share large and small datasets. IPSF is marketed as simple but is complex—or even over-engineered from some perspectives. Hate to say it, but Dropbox is much easier and stable.
Hoping IPFS makes it someday because the idea is great.
- Blahah 3y agoIt seems you have confused 'distributed' with... Something else. Regardless of how easy it is for you, or how complex you found it, the data is distributed via ipfs.
- anamexis 3y agoWhat data?
- Blahah 3y agoAny data shared in the network.
- anamexis 3y agoI don't understand what you're responding to. GP said they tried using IPFS with their project, but it ended up being too complicated and they opted for Dropbox instead.
- Blahah 3y agoI don't understand what you think GP was responding to. Dropbox isn't distributed. The problem they articulated isn't relevant to the problem solved by ipfs.
- anamexis 3y agoOP was responding to this: > IPFS or torrent are the best options for distributing data And suggesting that IPFS is not a good option for distributing scientific data due to its complexity.
- nl 3y agoI think you are thinking "distributed" in the "distributed computing/decentralized/p2p" sense. In this discussion it means "distributed" in the "made available" sense. The parent did not use IPFS because it didn't work for them. So no, the data was not distributed via IPFS.