6 ms·

I never liked the idea of hosting my own files on someone else's server (Dropbox) or sending them through a middle-man. That's why i just run my own "cloud" on

by WayneDB 14y ago

I never liked the idea of hosting my own files on someone else's server (Dropbox) or sending them through a middle-man. That's why i just run my own "cloud" on my own premises. If I want to give someone access to a file, I just throw it on my Synology DiskStation and the receiver can get at it via FTP or HTTP client.

zacharycohn 14y ago
That's not a "cloud," that's just a server. There's an important difference, and people need to stop using them interchangeably.
- radarsat1 14y ago
  What is the difference?
  - Achshar 14y ago
    I believe cloud by definition means third party, but something like the host wont know what it is storing, just who accesses it. So in OP's case if his computer is shutdown, the server wont be able to serve the file, but if it is on "cloud" there is a lot less chance of downtime and greater latency as "cloud" can have multiple data centers around the globe to server same file.
    - eccoli 14y ago
      I believe it's worse than that. Since as long as I remember and probably even before that, when explaining networking to executives, marketing and other technically challenged people, we use drawings. In these drawings the part representing the internet is for some reason drawn as a cloud, probably to convey that some magic we don't want to get into the deatils happens there. Now you've got it, the cloud, a.k.a. the internet symbol for ignorant people.
- irahul 14y ago
  > That's not a "cloud," that's just a server. Much like Web 2.0, cloud doesn't have a technical definition. > There's an important difference, and people need to stop using them interchangeably. People need to stop using "cloud" altogether.
- WayneDB 14y ago
  Haha, yeah that was kind of a joke and it's why I put the word "cloud" in quotes :) (However if I own a couple/few of these boxes at different sites and they all sync up to store things redundantly then the line is blurred just a bit. The Synology devices are certainly capable of that.)
- gregd 14y ago
  Hah. You silly young'uns. The internet has always been represented by a cloud. If his server is attached to the internet, it's part of said cloud.
kamjam 14y ago
Sounds like an awful lot of work finding a problem which there are easier solution. What exactly do you not like about using Dropbox? A trust issue? There are certain things I do host within my own ftp server, but I just use my web host which I have 10GB of disk space but am only using maybe 10 meg for my personal site. I wouldn't go to the extent of my own server unless it was a real business requirement, I'd be fine just putting on Dropbox/Google and if it was sensitive info then I would encrypt the files first - either 7zip or Truecrypt.
- WayneDB 14y ago
  The Synology was purchased primarily to store our large collection of media files. It arrived, I inserted my hard drives, plugged it into the LAN and booted it up. I don't consider this as part of the setup for sharing. The sharing features were then enabled with a few clicks on the appliance's locally hosted (ExtJS) web application. This step was much less work than going around to every PC in the home and office installing Dropbox. Usage-wise, I find it to be less work to share something via my Synology than with Dropbox, particularly because A) I don't need any special software to share something from any computer in the world, B) most of the time my files arrive instantly and C) there are no limits to the size of files that I can share. When I was still using Dropbox, I'd hit that limit often enough to make it a PITA to use.

by WayneDB 14y ago

zacharycohn 14y ago

That's not a "cloud," that's just a server. There's an important difference, and people need to stop using them interchangeably.

radarsat1 14y ago
What is the difference?
- Achshar 14y ago
  I believe cloud by definition means third party, but something like the host wont know what it is storing, just who accesses it. So in OP's case if his computer is shutdown, the server wont be able to serve the file, but if it is on "cloud" there is a lot less chance of downtime and greater latency as "cloud" can have multiple data centers around the globe to server same file.
  - eccoli 14y ago
    I believe it's worse than that. Since as long as I remember and probably even before that, when explaining networking to executives, marketing and other technically challenged people, we use drawings. In these drawings the part representing the internet is for some reason drawn as a cloud, probably to convey that some magic we don't want to get into the deatils happens there. Now you've got it, the cloud, a.k.a. the internet symbol for ignorant people.
irahul 14y ago
> That's not a "cloud," that's just a server. Much like Web 2.0, cloud doesn't have a technical definition. > There's an important difference, and people need to stop using them interchangeably. People need to stop using "cloud" altogether.
WayneDB 14y ago
Haha, yeah that was kind of a joke and it's why I put the word "cloud" in quotes :) (However if I own a couple/few of these boxes at different sites and they all sync up to store things redundantly then the line is blurred just a bit. The Synology devices are certainly capable of that.)
gregd 14y ago
Hah. You silly young'uns. The internet has always been represented by a cloud. If his server is attached to the internet, it's part of said cloud.

kamjam 14y ago

Sounds like an awful lot of work finding a problem which there are easier solution. What exactly do you not like about using Dropbox? A trust issue? There are certain things I do host within my own ftp server, but I just use my web host which I have 10GB of disk space but am only using maybe 10 meg for my personal site. I wouldn't go to the extent of my own server unless it was a real business requirement, I'd be fine just putting on Dropbox/Google and if it was sensitive info then I would encrypt the files first - either 7zip or Truecrypt.

WayneDB 14y ago
The Synology was purchased primarily to store our large collection of media files. It arrived, I inserted my hard drives, plugged it into the LAN and booted it up. I don't consider this as part of the setup for sharing. The sharing features were then enabled with a few clicks on the appliance's locally hosted (ExtJS) web application. This step was much less work than going around to every PC in the home and office installing Dropbox. Usage-wise, I find it to be less work to share something via my Synology than with Dropbox, particularly because A) I don't need any special software to share something from any computer in the world, B) most of the time my files arrive instantly and C) there are no limits to the size of files that I can share. When I was still using Dropbox, I'd hit that limit often enough to make it a PITA to use.