3 ms·

Just to clarify, the is no synching. The file requests are on demand. Only the metadata (oh, there is that word again) would appear when listing a file/folder.

by millerm 13y ago

Just to clarify, the is no synching. The file requests are on demand. Only the metadata (oh, there is that word again) would appear when listing a file/folder. Just like the rest of the net. It's not a synchronization service but a file access system. That the reason you can have 1TB space on a phone. It's a NAS device, or is it a SAN? Anyway, it just a Linux server that connects to the Internet so you can get your goods. I'd rather they open up the entire OS and software though. People need to know this is secure and not just trust someone, again.

BraveNewCurency 13y ago
All the magic is in the client-side software. It's kind of like all your computers NFS-mount their home dir. > Just to clarify, the is no synching I think there is. You can set some files to be "cached locally". In this case, they would be synced between all computers that have local copies. The server is nothing special, but the client software is quite new.
wWIwsijeC20 13y ago
> I'd rather they open up the entire OS and software though. People need to know this is secure and not just trust someone, again With open source software, too, you have to trust someone. In this case this someone is the people who review it. Of course it's always possible to check the source code yourself, but I doubt that most people would invest the time to audit a codebase that has been worked on for two years or more, by several developers. And even if they invest the time, chances are that weaknesses are overlooked (see, for example, Cryptocat). And even if the source code does exactly what is claimed to do, how do you know that the compiler works correctly? Does the machine code really correspond exactly to the source code? It always comes down to trusting _some one_. With open-sourced software, that person is usually "someone on the internet". With Plug, you have to trust the people who produce it. It is their business interest to provide a relatively secure product, and from kickstarter they got a lot of resources to put into this. I for one would rather trust a company with a financial interest in providing a secure product, than a couple of volunteers who are in it for other reasons. Edit: Grammar

by millerm 13y ago

BraveNewCurency 13y ago

All the magic is in the client-side software. It's kind of like all your computers NFS-mount their home dir. > Just to clarify, the is no synching I think there is. You can set some files to be "cached locally". In this case, they would be synced between all computers that have local copies. The server is nothing special, but the client software is quite new.

wWIwsijeC20 13y ago

> I'd rather they open up the entire OS and software though. People need to know this is secure and not just trust someone, again With open source software, too, you have to trust someone. In this case this someone is the people who review it. Of course it's always possible to check the source code yourself, but I doubt that most people would invest the time to audit a codebase that has been worked on for two years or more, by several developers. And even if they invest the time, chances are that weaknesses are overlooked (see, for example, Cryptocat). And even if the source code does exactly what is claimed to do, how do you know that the compiler works correctly? Does the machine code really correspond exactly to the source code? It always comes down to trusting _some one_. With open-sourced software, that person is usually "someone on the internet". With Plug, you have to trust the people who produce it. It is their business interest to provide a relatively secure product, and from kickstarter they got a lot of resources to put into this. I for one would rather trust a company with a financial interest in providing a secure product, than a couple of volunteers who are in it for other reasons. Edit: Grammar