|
Yeah what's the deal...I use Dropbox because I've always seen iCloud leaks in the news...
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
iCloud "leaks" are from people literally sending their passwords to people
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Yeah what's the deal...I use Dropbox because I've always seen iCloud leaks in the news... Yeah those leaks are "social engineering attacks" aka, celebrities having ridiculous passwords and/or sharing their passwords.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Hasn't Dropbox had security breaches in the past anyways?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:Hasn't Dropbox had security breaches in the past anyways? There was that time in 2011 when they allowed anyone to log in to any account without needing a password, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Xabi posted:For all of us who don't understand what you're talking about, what's the problem, how big of a problem is it (if any) and why is iCloud and OneDrive better? Most of the cloud storage services are fairly similar in how their clients act. They're typically a little app that watches a specific folder on your computer and then syncs changes with the cloud service. They also do things like have badge notification for changes, little alerts, use system APIs to integrate with other apps and services. What Dropbox is doing right now is not really all that different from OneDrive or Box. iCloud Drive is a little opaque, but I imagine it pretty similar. Being Apple however, I'm will to bet iCloud has tighter integration and smoother execution just by the nature of Apple having access to the OS at a level not enjoyed by 3rd parties. The biggest drawback to syncing with cloud services is that the content is mirrored on a local volume. What Dropbox is trying to with Project Infinite is remove local storage from the equation completely, yet still give you the ability to access your data as if it were on a local volume. Dropbox has stated that they need a kernel-level driver in the OS in order to mount a Project Infinite volume. This is bad because now you have 3rd party code that's running god-mode on your computer. This is not going to be an issue with just Macs. It will be an issue on any platform this new file system is developed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:Hasn't Dropbox had security breaches in the past anyways? I got this two weeks ago: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Wasn't that their super lack response to the discovery they'd had a massive breach?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
So what's better than Dropbox? iCloud?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:So what's better than Dropbox? iCloud? Really it's just dealer's choice at this point. I'm trying to remove my use of Dropbox because of how long it took them to acknowledge the breach they had of all the user accounts, and because of where they're going from an architectural perspective. Unfortunately, there's still enough stuff out there that requires Dropbox for config backups or sync across devices that I still have my account with them active. I guess by the time Project Infinite is rolled into their product, I'll have to look for alternatives for the stuff that has Dropbox as a dependency. Personally, I use a combination of services, but for bulk document storage I use the 1TB One Drive space I got with my home O365 subscription. Proteus Jones fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Yeeee. Academic OneDrive, Dropbox, etc. Then pay like $1 a month to put your most important poo poo in AWS S3 Glacier if you want. Use 'em all! They're using you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
This came up earlier in the thread but BoxCryptor + Any Cloud Service (I use OneDrive's free 1 TB with an Office 365 sub) is a great way to put things in the cloud and protect them. I would move away from anything that uses dropbox as its only sync option. I don't think I have anything left that uses it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
I like Dropbox because it works and I can have it on basically any machine I want without any dumb issues. Mac, Linux, Windows, web...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Unless you have a ton of data you will only need to access a fraction of with hours of notice, Glacier doesn't seem worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
The only files I trust with Dropbox with are desktop wallpapers that I want to share on multiple devices. No way in hell I'd put something important in there
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
I mostly follow a rule of thumb that anything I store in the cloud isn't anything I'd be upset with going public, but I'm still generally not comfortable with storing my stuff on something I don't actually own & control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
fleshweasel posted:Unless you have a ton of data you will only need to access a fraction of with hours of notice, Glacier doesn't seem worth it. Yeah, it takes a while to retrieve it, but unless you've had a catastrophic failure, it's *on your hard drive*. If you want to use it for long-term backup kinda things like an entire image of your computer in 2014, you can do that, it'll just take a few hours to get it. Gosh, I feel like I keep saying this in every Mac thread over and over. It's good to take good care of your local machines, so they don't fuckin' die, it's good to have a local backup like to a Time Capsule or some other NAS or NAS-like networked drive, and then in case everything burns down and your device and your backup is destroyed, it's good to have your most important stuff somewhere offsite. My recommendation was Glacier, since it's cheap. There are products that do it automatically that are not as cheap. I like that with S3 I have control over what is in my backup. Maybe you don't... Maybe you want to spend more money for online services. That's fine. But it's a three prong approach. Keep the actual device away from harm if you can, back it up nightly to something in your house, and have a (partial, if you want) backup offsite when everything REALLY goes wrong. It's not an expensive solution nor is it a complicated one. You just have to set up the "transfer to Glacier" rule and then upload to S3. Also, you will practically never have to retrieve anything from Glacier if you have local backups. Unless your house is on fire and you lose everything. It's insurance. Cheap insurance. p.s. you can also create a folder that is NOT automatically moved to glacier after x days, and you can access that if you want.... but it's more expensive and Dropbox is probably cheaper if you use that a lot
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Why not use google drive? I've got it setup w/ symlinks to sync certain dirs and it works quite well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
You can do that with Dropbox IIRC. Not much different. S3 is pay-as-you-go instead of "free, then pay us for more". S3 doesn't also install proprietary stuff, so you can do what you want... Use Transmit, use the web interface, use some custom script or web application you wrote... It's just more flexible, if you know what you're doing. Sometimes it's cheaper, sometimes it's more expensive. Personally I use Dropbox for documents and S3 and Glacier for larger files like RAW photos and stuff from my past. I don't have an offsite backup of my entire computer. Please don't burn my place down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Amazon has a another tier called Infrequent Access. Unlike Glacier, you won't get charged massive amounts if you suddenly restore all your data, and the data is available instantly. (Glacier charges based on the maximum rate you restore in a month; suddenly restoring everything will jack up your bill about ten times.) It's between Reduced Redundancy and Glacier pricing, has a minimum retention period of 30 days, and charges per GB retrieved. Your objects have to be at least 128 KiB for it to work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
I keep Dropbox around mostly because it's the easiest way for me to share files with people. Dragging a zip file to the dropbox folder and getting a share link is really convenient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
I'd rather zap my testicles with a car battery than try to untangle Amazon cloud poo poo for personal use
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
I notice you guys are completely not mentioning Google Drive -- is something wrong with it? It's what I use for the time being, although all I really need cloud storage for (on my laptop, anyway) right now is schoolwork. I use iCloud for photos, iPhone backups, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:I keep Dropbox around mostly because it's the easiest way for me to share files with people. Dragging a zip file to the dropbox folder and getting a share link is really convenient. I really like the other way too. Taking files from users. Their File Requests functionality is something I have not seen from other providers or in the case of Gdrive, a first-party implementation. It's a lot like "Drop Box" in multi-user MacOS Classic and X.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:I'd rather zap my testicles with a car battery than try to untangle Amazon cloud poo poo for personal use I wouldn't make it a general recommendation, but if you already familiar through work it's not bad. Especially just for one-way archiving stuff. Generate IAM key pair, plug those into Cyberduck/Transmit, dragon drop  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A lot more iCloud integration (you can backup your entire documents & desktop if you have the space, and if you run out of room it'll delete the local copy of those backed up files), Photos is smarter, a lot more Continuity support (you can unlock your Mac with an Apple Watch, and you can copy/paste from your Mac to your iPhone). Metal on Nvidia cards is pretty good for general graphics/UI improvements, and games (lol), etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
I can't tell if the Dropbox hate is just from spergy nerds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:I'd rather zap my testicles with a car battery than try to untangle Amazon cloud poo poo for personal use
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
I've just been using the same old version of transmission for the past year. If you have an old version of it just don't update. The new versions are no different from what I can tell. Imo it's still the best client and I'm stubborn so I'll be damned if I ever switch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
japtor posted:How about Amazon Cloud Drive? Which afaik is meant for personal use. That's what I'm using. I have a Time Machine for quick access and emergencies, 200gb of iCloud for photos, and Amazon Cloud Drive as my backup of last resort. I think it works out to under $100/year. Cloud Drive does not auto sync, but I'll just occasionally upload my folders and it won't upload duplicates. It's not ideal, but gently caress all it's better than dealing with Amazon Glacier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:It's not ideal, but gently caress all it's better than dealing with Amazon Glacier. I've got 40gb stored and it costs me like a dollar per month. It's really not a pain in the rear end, it's just that AWS and S3 is very big and very flexible so finding what you need can be tough for the uninitiated, but it's not impenetrable. $1/mo is cheaper than things like CrashPlan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Pivo posted:it's just that AWS and S3 is very big and very flexible so finding what you need can be tough for the uninitiated, but it's not impenetrable. https://www.arqbackup.com
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Oh and I was thinking of this from a few months ago re: AWS/Glacier: https://medium.com/@karppinen/how-i-ended-up-paying-150-for-a-single-60gb-download-from-amazon-glacier-6cb77b288c3e#.rscitxg72
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
japtor posted:Oh and I was thinking of this from a few months ago re: AWS/Glacier: Yeah, that guy hosed up. If your stuff is in Glacier, you just go to your web console/file browser on their site, hit "Initiate Restore" on the folder/file, when the Storage Class changes from Glacier you just download it like normal using whatever client you want. You pay for the restore, you pay for the download from S3, but it's a perfectly reasonable cost, nowhere near $150. I didn't read the thing in detail but it's a lot simpler than he makes it out to be. If you're going to script it, don't blame Amazon for your script's misbehaviour ... But they will still probably refund you. edit: I mean, I don't know what that guy on Medium is saying, but if you look at their pricing: https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/pricing/ it's quite clear EXACTLY how much they charge for "Glacier to Internet". Pivo fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Pivo posted:You guys raging against S3 are really overselling the difficulty of use. If you're a long-time Mac user, you probably already own Transmit, which is a great FTP/SFTP/etc client that supports S3. You generate a key on Amazon's site, stick it in your password manager (you do use one, right?) and then save it in Transmit. Then when you start the application you have 1-click access to your buckets. When you do uploads, you can select things like "only overwrite if the destination is older" etc. The only other complication with Glacier is you have to set up a rule to move your files from S3 prime to Glacier. I only keep my photos in Glacier, because that's 99% of my storage usage. You use a regex-like string to determine what you want to move over, and after what period of time. I tried Arq, uploaded scores of gigs of data, but the sizing didn't look right and it's difficult to tell what you have in Amazon Glacier without downloading it all again (this was back when I was trying to stay within 300gb/month on Comcast). In the end it looks like Arq screwed up and uploaded only part of my data while saying everything was complete. I could have tried Transmit instead. But the fact both Arq and Amazon Glacier reported everything was fine when it wasn't kind of soured me on the service. I'd rather see what I've got uploaded rather than trust a vault to be working properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Yeah all of the above posts really outline why it sucks to use Amazon as a backup platform. It's too complicated. Don't trust your irreplaceable photos and other data with a hacked together scripts / regular expressions / terrible software/FTP Software (Transmit, Cyberduck for backups?! WTF??). Anyone on the fence, just use something easy like Backblaze or CrashPlan. The extra dough is worth spending for the peace of mind that you're not going to get stuck with a huge bill later and that your data is safe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Hey, guys, I'm not an Amazon shill. Use whatever works for you. I'm saying it works for me. I don't think you can initiate the restore from Transmit, I haven't tried, but the process is like this: you set up a rule that says uploads in a certain path or that match some expression are moved to Glacier after some number of days. Then you upload to S3 like normal. Then you go to their web interface and you can see where objects in your bucket are stored, and if they're in Glacier, you can 'Initiate Restore'. Once that's done (I assume they use a tape library, so it takes a while) you can just download it from S3 like normal. I know, it's a bit of a manual process, but this way you know exactly what actions you are taking and what you will be charged for. I have not used any of the automated tools, because as a software developer - I don't fuckin' trust other software developers with my money. I know how this poo poo goes down! *sigh* I've accidentally spent hundreds of dollars of clients' money multiple times because of buggy tools that I wrote. Anyhow, just saying it's a good cost-effective option if you upload stuff infrequently and don't mind managing it. If you don't care to, there are services that back up your entire computer offsite hands-off. I just wonder about their longevity vs. a behemoth like Amazon, so I don't fully trust them either, but I'm paranoid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Pivo posted:I know, it's a bit of a manual process I'm also a software dev.. It's an overly complex manual process and using Transmit or Cyberduck for backup? No. Crashplan and BackBlaze seem to be really well regarded and really simple to use. That for me trumps the lack of control I have. ALL of my important data is on /Volumes/Storage and Media. if I can just point BackBlaze at that drive and it's backed up, then sweet. I wasn't aware of Arq, so I'll take a look at that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
I got boxcryptor for iOS but how do you encrypt a documents folder...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
Pivo posted:
Yeah, that's a good point. I'd hope if these services went belly-up there'd be some way to offload your existing backups somewhere else (Amazon or whoever's still running after the nukes fly and we're living in a Mad Max-like future) or at least restore them to a drive or something. Arq always seemed like a great idea but I do hear things about it behaving weird. From a cursory glance, Amazon Cloud looks alright, but is it more expensive than using S3 or Glacier?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 06:10
|
|