5 ms·

I'm one of the 1 million users whose accounts are dormant. I love the product, but it bothers me that it's not open source. (Not their problem or anyone else's

I'm one of the 1 million users whose accounts are dormant. I love the product, but it bothers me that it's not open source. (Not their problem or anyone else's, but I prefer not to use close-source software if I can help it.) Also, after I don't know how long, the whole "the API is around the corner" thing began to feel like a shell game.

unalone 17y ago
It's two years old. Give them time, they're evolving their site constantly. Also, I don't think you know what a shell game is. I love the product, but it bothers me that it's not open source. (Not their problem or anyone else's, but I prefer not to use close-source software if I can help it.) They created one of the fastest and best methods of syncing there is, maybe the best one if simply being intuitive counts. They make their money by licensing it to you. How would you take that and open-source it without killing dhouston's method of making a living? Also: What's this about not liking closed-source? That's like saying you dislike songs that you can't download as individual tracks. Maybe it's cool that some things are broken down and easy to tinker with, but it's silly to turn that into disliking the ones you can't break.
- telemachos 17y ago
  > Also, I don't think you know what a shell game is. If my imprecision bothers you, feel free to s/con game/shell game/. >Also: What's this about not liking closed-source? That's like saying you dislike songs that you can't download as individual tracks. Maybe it's cool that some things are broken down and easy to tinker with, but it's silly to turn that into disliking the ones you can't break. I don't think you know what the value of free and open software is. It has nothing to do with wanting things "you can break." I have no idea how you make that leap (open source == breakable?). I would add that a closed source application built (as far as I've read) on open source pieces (SVN? Python? Rsync?) is especially off-putting to me. To clarify one other point. Ubuntu has already reverse-engineered Dropbox (as Ubuntu One), so if Dropbox's profit relies on their having the sole access to the magic formula, it's already too late. Anything can be (and generally will be) reverse engineered. I don't think that closing off the source is a royal road to success.
  - unalone 17y ago
    If my imprecision bothers you, feel free to s/con game/shell game/. Your imprecision, as you call it, is that you are associating Dropbox saying they're working on an API with a shady person trying to steal your money. Unless you've paid them for an API that you didn't receive, they haven't conned you. I don't think you know what the value of free and open software is. I'll hazard a guess: It's free, and also anybody's able to improve it if they want. I've only got five years' experience with open source, though, so perhaps I'm still an amateur at this. To clarify one other point. Ubuntu has already reverse-engineered Dropbox (as Ubuntu One), so if Dropbox's profit relies on their having the sole access to the magic formula, it's already too late. Anything can be (and generally will be) reverse engineered. I don't think that closing off the source is a royal road to success. So they use Dropbox's exact code? Or are you saying that they saw what Dropbox did and decided to copy it? Because that's not reverse engineering. Funny story: Once upon a time I thought that open source would lead to everything getting better. I thought Firefox, for instance, would just continue to be an unstoppable beast because, after all, anybody who wanted to could make it do anything any other browser did. Then I realized Firefox was slow and ugly on the Mac, moved to the closed-source Safari, and enjoy its incredibly sleek design. It was around the time I stopped using Ubuntu because I realized the closed-source OS X was better. Now that Windows 7 is spreading, I think Ubuntu's dropped to my third-favorite OS. The problem with your line of thinking is that open source doesn't pay. The best people in certain fields, meanwhile, only work for money, and occasionally only for large gobs of money. That includes interface designers, and a lot of the people who work on fixing the ugly problems that nobody really likes working on. So open source's downfall is that it can't compete with the quality and focus of closed-source. It's the problem with democracy, so to speak. I like open source for some things. I still haven't found an open-source application that's as cutting-edge as its closed equivalents. Even Quicksilver left me dissatisfied until I discovered the Google-sponsored Quick Search Box.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
      - palish 17y ago
- blasdel 17y ago
  Do you not see how useful it would be for the client-side to be open source? Most of Dropbox's value lies in their servers, especially the web interface, but they've stumbled a bit on the client-side.
  - unalone 17y ago
    How so? It's a folder that syncs. I can't think of how to improve that. Perhaps add versioning? But that's not exactly an essential.
    - cschep 17y ago
      The one thing I want is to be able to turn certain folders off/on depending on the machine.
      - newsdog 17y ago
        I agree - it also syncs certain files I don't want synced - like log files.
        cschep 17y ago
        yes! .dropboxignore please!
      - 83457 17y ago
        This is the only feature at the moment that i need which dropbox is lacking. Makes it difficult to use Dropbox in more than one environment such as work versus school when everything is synced everywhere.
    - mtrichardson 17y ago
      Maybe make it so certain clients don't take up the entirety of your CPU while they try to add bits onto the icons of the files themselves...
      - 17y ago
drewcrawford 17y ago
I'll agree with you that there are some really, really annoying bugs (Filevault + Spotlight? Flakey lan sync? Resource forks?) that I'd love to get in and fix, but can't, because the source is closed. I've run into this with other startups too; getting bugs fixed, or even acknowledged, is like pulling teeth. It's way longer and way harder than it has to be. Along with APIs, we've been promised selective sync, better permissions, and a whole host of other features with due dates in the 9+ months ago range. Don't get me wrong, I love Dropbox. Couldn't live without it. I even sent them a resume once along with an expanded bug list I wanted to fix, but never heard back.
- padmapper 17y ago
  Just because it's on the todo list doesn't mean they have the manpower to get it done in the next year, especially where new features are concerned. Users pull in all directions...
  - drewcrawford 17y ago
    Sure, I've read Mythical Man-Month too. But you can't give customers a deadline and not deliver 9+ months afterwards.
lisper 17y ago
It doesn't bother me that it isn't open source per se, but what does bother me (and the reason I don't and wouldn't use it) is that I have no way of independently verifying that their security measures are adequate. I would never trust sensitive data to a third party provider unless at a minimum they had undergone a security audit by an independent third party. As far as I can tell, dropbox hasn't.

unalone 17y ago

It's two years old. Give them time, they're evolving their site constantly. Also, I don't think you know what a shell game is. I love the product, but it bothers me that it's not open source. (Not their problem or anyone else's, but I prefer not to use close-source software if I can help it.) They created one of the fastest and best methods of syncing there is, maybe the best one if simply being intuitive counts. They make their money by licensing it to you. How would you take that and open-source it without killing dhouston's method of making a living? Also: What's this about not liking closed-source? That's like saying you dislike songs that you can't download as individual tracks. Maybe it's cool that some things are broken down and easy to tinker with, but it's silly to turn that into disliking the ones you can't break.

telemachos 17y ago
> Also, I don't think you know what a shell game is. If my imprecision bothers you, feel free to s/con game/shell game/. >Also: What's this about not liking closed-source? That's like saying you dislike songs that you can't download as individual tracks. Maybe it's cool that some things are broken down and easy to tinker with, but it's silly to turn that into disliking the ones you can't break. I don't think you know what the value of free and open software is. It has nothing to do with wanting things "you can break." I have no idea how you make that leap (open source == breakable?). I would add that a closed source application built (as far as I've read) on open source pieces (SVN? Python? Rsync?) is especially off-putting to me. To clarify one other point. Ubuntu has already reverse-engineered Dropbox (as Ubuntu One), so if Dropbox's profit relies on their having the sole access to the magic formula, it's already too late. Anything can be (and generally will be) reverse engineered. I don't think that closing off the source is a royal road to success.
- unalone 17y ago
  If my imprecision bothers you, feel free to s/con game/shell game/. Your imprecision, as you call it, is that you are associating Dropbox saying they're working on an API with a shady person trying to steal your money. Unless you've paid them for an API that you didn't receive, they haven't conned you. I don't think you know what the value of free and open software is. I'll hazard a guess: It's free, and also anybody's able to improve it if they want. I've only got five years' experience with open source, though, so perhaps I'm still an amateur at this. To clarify one other point. Ubuntu has already reverse-engineered Dropbox (as Ubuntu One), so if Dropbox's profit relies on their having the sole access to the magic formula, it's already too late. Anything can be (and generally will be) reverse engineered. I don't think that closing off the source is a royal road to success. So they use Dropbox's exact code? Or are you saying that they saw what Dropbox did and decided to copy it? Because that's not reverse engineering. Funny story: Once upon a time I thought that open source would lead to everything getting better. I thought Firefox, for instance, would just continue to be an unstoppable beast because, after all, anybody who wanted to could make it do anything any other browser did. Then I realized Firefox was slow and ugly on the Mac, moved to the closed-source Safari, and enjoy its incredibly sleek design. It was around the time I stopped using Ubuntu because I realized the closed-source OS X was better. Now that Windows 7 is spreading, I think Ubuntu's dropped to my third-favorite OS. The problem with your line of thinking is that open source doesn't pay. The best people in certain fields, meanwhile, only work for money, and occasionally only for large gobs of money. That includes interface designers, and a lot of the people who work on fixing the ugly problems that nobody really likes working on. So open source's downfall is that it can't compete with the quality and focus of closed-source. It's the problem with democracy, so to speak. I like open source for some things. I still haven't found an open-source application that's as cutting-edge as its closed equivalents. Even Quicksilver left me dissatisfied until I discovered the Google-sponsored Quick Search Box.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - palish 17y ago
blasdel 17y ago
Do you not see how useful it would be for the client-side to be open source? Most of Dropbox's value lies in their servers, especially the web interface, but they've stumbled a bit on the client-side.
- unalone 17y ago
  How so? It's a folder that syncs. I can't think of how to improve that. Perhaps add versioning? But that's not exactly an essential.
  - cschep 17y ago
    The one thing I want is to be able to turn certain folders off/on depending on the machine.
    - newsdog 17y ago
      I agree - it also syncs certain files I don't want synced - like log files.
      - cschep 17y ago
        yes! .dropboxignore please!
    - 83457 17y ago
      This is the only feature at the moment that i need which dropbox is lacking. Makes it difficult to use Dropbox in more than one environment such as work versus school when everything is synced everywhere.
  - mtrichardson 17y ago
    Maybe make it so certain clients don't take up the entirety of your CPU while they try to add bits onto the icons of the files themselves...
    - 17y ago

drewcrawford 17y ago

I'll agree with you that there are some really, really annoying bugs (Filevault + Spotlight? Flakey lan sync? Resource forks?) that I'd love to get in and fix, but can't, because the source is closed. I've run into this with other startups too; getting bugs fixed, or even acknowledged, is like pulling teeth. It's way longer and way harder than it has to be. Along with APIs, we've been promised selective sync, better permissions, and a whole host of other features with due dates in the 9+ months ago range. Don't get me wrong, I love Dropbox. Couldn't live without it. I even sent them a resume once along with an expanded bug list I wanted to fix, but never heard back.

padmapper 17y ago
Just because it's on the todo list doesn't mean they have the manpower to get it done in the next year, especially where new features are concerned. Users pull in all directions...
- drewcrawford 17y ago
  Sure, I've read Mythical Man-Month too. But you can't give customers a deadline and not deliver 9+ months afterwards.

lisper 17y ago

It doesn't bother me that it isn't open source per se, but what does bother me (and the reason I don't and wouldn't use it) is that I have no way of independently verifying that their security measures are adequate. I would never trust sensitive data to a third party provider unless at a minimum they had undergone a security audit by an independent third party. As far as I can tell, dropbox hasn't.