Slashdot Mirror
Online Storage 2.0: Six Sites Reviewed
mikemuch writes "Services like box.net, openomy, and eSnips are more than just places to access your files from the web. Some include media organization tools, Windows shell integration, drag-and-drop uploading, tagging, and social content sharing. ExtremeTech has a review up of six online storage services with Web 2.0 twists."
Well at least I have the nes advertising slogan worked out......
There are only two steps in the gathering of ultimate knowledge. Open your eyes and, RTFM!
They give you 5 Gig free. It's owned by AOL, but there don't seem to be any realy limitations placed on the user.
Now isn't this link much better?. Why is it so difficult to submit these links instead? Sigh...
I just use a program called Unison and sync up my photos and home videos to an NFS share on another box on my lan, but the idea of off site storage has always appealed to me...
I wonder what kind of solutions that support Linux users are out there... Just talking about a way for a user like me to do an off site backup without having to burn a dvd and take it off site to a safety deposit box...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I've got 224 GB of storage space and 2.6 TB of monthly bandwidth, along with an image gallery, blog, SSH and FTP access, and email with spam filtering for $9.99/month + $10/year for the domain name.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Mediamax used to be rather good (very good, in fact) back when it was still called streamload. Unfortunately, last year, they went through a big upgrading and rebranding exercise in August that has virtually destroyed its functionality and reliability.
The old, usable interface was replaced by a hideous, slow nightmare that, frankly, didn't even look as good as the old version. Files now routinely vanish while being moved between folders, or fail to show up at all after being uploaded. The interface for hosting files for non-members to access has been crippled and passwords or IP restrictions set on such public-hosted folders frequently disappear and reset themselves. Many files uploaded before the conversion to Mediamax have vanished, or remain visible but inaccessible.
For a month or so after the "upgrade", the support staff seemed to be genuinely trying to fix things. After that, all of the customer interface points were effectively shut down and the company went into full-on spin mode. I can only come to the conclusion that the new back-end for the service is effectively unworkable, but that for whatever reason, either management or the line (or both) cannot admit this and roll back to the old technology.
I'm on the verge of backing up all my stored content to DVD until I can find another store for it and cancelling my account. I know others will be having similar thoughts. The entire thing seems to be an object lesson into how to run a successful service into the ground.
Putting sensitive documents in online storage, on computers not under the document owners control is stupid. The fact these services are met with some success is deeply worrying, why are people not aware it's a bad idea to put so much personal data in the hands of an anonymous corporation?
But then, I remember MySpace exists... *sigh*
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
God I hate you corporate security types. You earn a living by sucking the fun out of everything, and your only job is to "protect corporate assets" - what a noble line of work! (As if corporate assets NEED more protecting), and then, when something really DOES happen, you massively inflate the cost of the incident.
Does anyone know of a service that will allow me to rsync across ssh to an encrypted partition?
That would be useful.
...but close: getindi. More of a "share stuff with the groups I'm in", e.g., your softball team, church choir, etc.
The Army reading list
Yippee - 6 more sites to add to the corporate "banned" list.
It's bad enough people try to use things like "Gmail" to send things that really ought to be sent securely. There are lot of semi-computer-literate yokels out there who see "SSL" and "SSH" and forget that their "private" data will be lying in the clear on someone else's server at the end of the day (free for the someone else or a server hacker to copy/read).
It's assholes like this who make IT difficult for everyone else by inspiring hatred and fostering a sense of rebellion among those they supposedly 'serve'. Perhaps as a Slashdot reader, you're familiar with the phrase, "The more you tighten your grip..."? This is the reason that people attempt to work around you by using encrypted links to offsite storage. It's the same reason they set up unofficial file servers and install 'unapproved' applications. They need or want something that you, in your capacity as the provider of IT services, are not providing.
Rather than arrogantly treating those you work with as 'Yokels', you could understand and provide for their needs. Why don't you try working with them rather than against them? Spend the time you would stamping out undesirable computer use by educating your users about security and providing them with the tools and services they want.
Then, when you have a *real* security problem (one that doesn't involve the use of GMail), they'll be less likely to revolt.
If you work in IT and aren't willing to treat those around you with more respect than you'd give to livestock, you need to find a different job.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I have some pictures that could ... lets just say I might run into some legal issues if they ever fell into the wrong hands. The article really doesn't address what each service does to keep my images out of the hands of law enforcement.
It's a shame this type of thing has to be considered, but here in the US, there is a complete hysteria created by overweight soccer moms who need SOMETHING to bitch about, so lately it's been "pedophiles" and "internet predators" and US law enforcement is absolutely eating it up. Google for "Webe Web" to see what I'm talking about.
Anyhow, how are my images protected from seizure? Are they encrypted in some form that only *I* can get to?
For those willing to forgo drag-and-drop interfaces, the shared hosting account is a much better storage deal for the buck. The better companies will provide in excess of 100GB for $5-8 per month with regular off-site backups. Oh, and you get web hosting too.
In contrast, the consumer market companies in the article generally charge the same amount for an order of magnitude less storage. Maybe there's less competition for consumer storage, or higher marketing costs? Regardless, the discrepancy looks like a market imbalance that can't continue for long.
As a Mac user, I am used to paying a little more :-)
.Mac service for $99/year is a good deal: 1/2 gig storage, nice integration with OS X and Backup, and apparently fairly unlimited bandwidth (I use .Mac as a mirror for some of my downloads).
Seriously, the
How come these reviews never mention Apple's .Mac service? That's what I'm currently using, and I'd LOVE to find an alternative, as iDisk seizes up Finder all the freakin' time, but I have no clue which of those services integrate with OS X. But even a basic review showing how .Mac compares to the other options would be nice.
.Mac) online storage?
Does anybody have any advice for Mac-compatible (preferably Finder-integrated, like
Comment of the year
Many moons ago when I left Uni I dumpped all my data on to a "free" online storage location, knowning that for a month or so I'd be netless, and unable to move my data any other way.
A month later and it was no longer free, and all my content was "pay up in 60days, or we will delete the lot".
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Props to you for such a great reply to such an ass hat IT person.
Truth is, many IT people don't seem to "get" it. They call everything a security hole and make b2b communications more difficult.
Not everything needs tight-arsed security. If I want my outside people to send me a file with not-so-sensitive information that isn't very useful to anyone else, I think they should be able to FTP it to me ( or SFTP or SCP or FTP with SSL if pedantic IT people were so inclined). Instead of an ass-hat saying " you can't have an ftp server up because it's a security hole", the ass hat IT person should say "I'll set up a secure FTP server instead and they can send it there".
I've had those conversations all the time with idiot IT people.
Truth is I think they're just on a rampage sometimes without any real knowledge of why they're doing something.
That said, the IT department at the company I work for is the first competent group I've seen. They locked down IM, but set up a jabber server instead with an MSN gateway. IMO that's the way to go - set something up that's a viable alternative instead of just saying "no" to anyone who wants anything.
Fuck sometimes it'd be just easier to pull all ethernet cables.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Why is there no services using Webdav (AKA Web Folder for Windows)?
It is quite simple to setup (Apache + webdav module). it is a built-in feature in all OS (except Windows 98 IMHO). You can use HTTP Basic Authentification or something more secured with SSL. And your app will be fully integrated with your client's OS.
I have developped a large extranet service based on this technology. Pretty simple. You can choose either 100% JAVA based application (and using TOMCAT and all) or Apache 1.X (or 2.X). You don't have to build anykind of windows based application or complex web services (emulating the drag and drop feature).
It supports versionning, locking files, etc. On the server side, you can use (AFAIK) symbolic links, and so on. It can be easily used as a file sharing server for people working from different locations and with different accounts.
Olivier
there are piles of filehosts at the moment, rapidshare and megaupload pop straight into mind one of the best for last 9 months is MiHD simply because there is no waiting and popunders not to mention 500MB upload limit and resumable downloads
Never worked in IT, have you?
This is a classic example of a IT-provided service that employees already have (at least, if you've already invested in a good email system and a good secure file transfer system) that gets marketed directly to consumers as something they don't have. So...they "try it", often with something like a customer list or account statement that shouldn't really leave the company, and then just start using it without even telling the guy in the next cube, let alone IT.
Thus the need to ban (or at least listen for) such sites; if you don't, there will be people who just don't tell you.
I suppose I could safely modify my opening statement to, "Never worked with live humans, have you?" The same general principle I'm teaching you about today applies to other areas too. For example, if I don't lock my company's electrical closets, eventually someone will wander in there and do something that could get both of us in trouble. (Therefore I "ban" access to it by locking the door.)
MediaMax has below average Mac support, and gets easily confused with batch transfers. Box can do these, at least, but has weak to poor Safari/Gecko support.
And none of these has a cool API where one can just write a stream to. It all involves lots of miscellaneous, semi-intuitive file manipulations. All of them should have a method that requires file encryption, unless a file's going to be published freely as none of them USES STRONG PASSWORD ENFORCEMENT. This stuff is rife for a dictionary-attach-afternoon.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Although keep in mind, sometimes the "easy" way is not the right way. Yes, I know there is an arduous process to set up a secure FTP account on our servers, but there is a process. Suppose one of my users goes around that, and decides to use an alternative service instead. Now, I have to also be aware of and know the ins and outs of that particular service in order to be able to deal with it when problems arise when we have a perfectly fine and working system already.
What happens when my user quits or is fired? That information is not accessible nor secure because they did not use my standard secure FTP procedures. We may have lost a client because of that, or days of work in not having everything on our internal and closed systems.
We try to work with users, but circumventing IT isn't the way to go. Two-way communication is key, and understanding that at the end of the day, the company's interests are what we have to act in. I will also be blocking these sites, although I would personally like to use a few. But as a professional, I can make these kind of judgments and make my job easier. If I say an application is unapproved, that means I don't have time to support it when it breaks. If a user installs it anyway, it becomes crucial, and it breaks, then it becomes my problem, taking time away from priority projects because someone thought the rules didn't apply to them.
I would never call users Yokels, but a little knowledge can be dangerous.
Rob
Can I make a suggestion for this? It does SFTP and FTPS with automatic encrypted storage...
http://www.standardnetworks.com/moveitdmz
I think you're missing his point. While I wouldn't call them 'yokels', it should be agreed that there are plenty of people out there that just don't understand the dangers of transferring sensitive data.
Consider, for example, a medical researcher. This person may collect any volume of information on a patient for use in research. This person has a very strong medical understanding, but doesn't even know what file encryption is. They may store this information in a MS Word file. This is fine. Then they want to back it up on a remote, unencrypted fileserver to be able to access it from a different PC, or send it to another researcher. But, uh oh, a third party intercepted it, because it was right out in the open. Then the law finds out that sensitive patient information has been leaked out, and completely shuts down the research group and the researcher(s) potentially face time in prison.
That seems like an extreme example, but it's realistic, and I have seen it happen. The university where I provide IT support requires everybody with any sort of involvement with patient information to have a keen understanding and sense of moderation. Myself included, I had to be certified to ensure that my fileserver (which may or may not contain patient information) be impenetrable by third parties. And I've also had to make sure that all of my users are fully aware of the right and wrong way to transfer sensitive files, or else they would be using things like GMail.
/* No Comment */
Has anyone used Amazon's S3 service? [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=16427261 ]
We're considering using it for yet-another offsite backup of some of our records, in an encrypted form.
The prospect of being able to use a simple API to update and download backups seems like a great idea to me, but I've yet to find any decent service reviews.
Really.
Just two weeks ago I had a client who needed to transfer ~20 10-30mg files to a printer in China, ASAP. Those files were not sensitive at all. The file sizes ruled out many of these online offerings. My client said he had already tried using gmail as storage, and one other, but they both had limits of around 5mg/file.
After hearing that I didn't bother doing more research. I wish, after reading this article that I had, because there I was hand-holding him through two (XP & OSX) ftp client installs. He, then, had to hand-hold their Chinese printer through an install. (Yes, believe it or not, this printer didn't already have that capability. Small scale operation.)
In short, I was research lazy and found this article one of the most helpful I've read all month. Oh yea, and not everyone needs secure transfers.
damaged by dogma
Bleh.
If you submit a link to an article you wrote under the guise "[Website] has just [posted] a new [review of thing]"... where in fact [you] were the one doing the posting of said [review] under the employ of said [website]... you should be stoned.
Or modded down.
I call shenanigans. We use an SSL VPN solution through active-X or applet (the VPN router supports both) at my office. The SSL certificate we use is invalid and Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, etc. disallow me to view the page even after I've attempted manually importing the certificate. However, IE let's me right through with a simple warning. For those few of us without access to IE at home, that means we can't use the VPN. All they'd have to do is get a proper certificate and everything would be solved. But the response I get is "We can't support every flavor" or "We don't support linux." Nevermind the gaping security hole which is just waiting for someone to man-in-the-middle our VPN to gain access to important data files. This sort of response is typical to every IT department I've ever come across. I realize you may be nice and friendly and will at least attempt to be helpful but that makes you not in the 'norm'.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
You know I took the time to write out a nice bit picking apart you little tantrum here. I previewed it and it was well done. Then I read your garbage once again and decided you were not worth the effort. So I am instead settling on this simple comment, "You sir are a Turd Sandwich".
What does the "Gay Nigger Association of America" GNAA corporate have to do with online storage?
NOTE: Just put GNAA into google and see what you get!
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You are aware that there are costs involved with using an 'official' certificate authority, aren't you? It may not be in the budget.
This article concentrates on the interface and sharing, but I want to know answers to these questions before thinking about using them.
Are the data encrypted on the server? If so, how?
What prevents a server operator from stealing my data on the server?
How long are the data kept on the server?
How are they backed up?
What kind of guarantee do they give regarding to these?
eSnips is riddled with searchable MP3s
http://esnips.com/_t_/metallica
It's only a matter of time before we hear about them in the news
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So you made the effort, then threw it away because you decided he wasn't worth it? May as well have posted since the effort was already made; now its just a troll post.
Seriously. I can't see how anyone would trust their data to a company that doesn't have a potential lifespan of even six months. What do you think will happen when they suddenly go tits-up overnight and your stuff disappears? Keep your own stuff on your own media.
The amount of bandwidth and storage they offer at such low prices, I cannot understand how they offer what they do for the price. Perhaps I am being a bit too cynical.
That's the smartest/funniest thing I've read in a long time. God help me if I'm not using it in my own training by next week.
Then create a cert using CACert, provide instructions for users to import their root cert, and get on the bandwagon of people shouting for Mozilla to finally add them to the default list.
Or publish your own root cert for users to import.
There are solutions out there...
Your point is valid so I don't intend this as a flame at all. We're a huge company with a multi-billion dollar budget. Our network IT staff (network only, not dbas, sysadmins, etc) is comprised of like 6 people. They can easily afford the certificate.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
The fact that you have a process to set up secure FTP for your users puts you MILES ahead of most IT groups out there.
In many companies getting an intranet website created on the official webserver requires tons of red tape and brings on questions like "Are you an official web dev in the official web dev group?" Then IT wonders why IIS or whatever is running on 47 PCs sitting under desks all over the company, completely unmanaged.
Likewise in many companies users get a 25MB email quota or something silly like that, and then IT wonders why so many users find ways to go through proxy servers to get to gmail.
Now, if you have services in place and they are given out without extreme duress that is one thing. But in many companies there is so much red tape to go through IT that everybody just ends up creating their own mini-IT groups...
http://stashbox.org/ is an up-and-coming storage site. Includes the incredible useful and usable Shup screencapture and file upload utility. It can even upload to sites other than stashbox.org
It's still a work in progress, but the site and tools receive frequent updates.
was I the only one who reflexivly covered my groin upon seeing "eSnips"?
Almost an engrish.com worthy name.
Could be worse, I suppose, or maybe eUnichs or eBobbitizing was already taken.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Maintaining backups with rsync would be nice. Any hosting providers offer rsync service?
My gf works in a corporate office at Wells Fargo. They have the hardest time transfering files around, email is capped at 10MB, outside programs banned. The only 'approved' way of transfering files (for example large 500 page financial statement 30MB pdf) is through a "SwiftSend" program. The only problem, is that this custom/enterprise app is so buggy, she is afraid to even open it, because she knows there is a 90% chance it will crash hard, locking up the PC, and needing a visit from IT in order to get the PC working again.
If they just were to lift the email cap, then they would be happy. Or perhaps installing a ZIP program, most PDFs can compress pretty well. But no, too much bureaucracy.
I like my job better (small, 10-person company), where I have free reign to install what the fuck ever I want. If I screw up my machine, it's my own damn fault, I'm better able to fix it that most people there anyway.
sig? uhh, umm, ok
MediaMax's generous 25GB of storage is limited by a odd download limit of just 1GB/mo. That means it will take two years and one month to download all 25GB.
The other services offer monthly download limits that are five to ten times the storage provided or even unlimited.
In my experience, just because a company can afford it doesn't mean they'll fork over the money for it- and the more money a company has, the less inclined it is to spend it. The company I currently work for offers a VPN for those who would like to do some of their work from home, but they do so with a mentality of it being a luxury, and if it doesn't work, their option is to go to work. It's a ridiculous policy, and next to no support is offered for it. The company can most definitely afford to support it, but it's not a priority. That could easily be the case in other companies as well.
I use stashbox all the time. The shell extension lets me upload a file in 2 clicks (by putting an item on the right click context menu).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
still not enough for my pr0n :-)
- This can't be... - Be what? Be real?
There's nothing on what protocols these systems support. If you can't get your files to or from the server, then they're useless. Nothing in the article or on the individual company web sites mention that. When will marketers acutally realize that in order to sell a service other than to a few suckers you actually have to be able to use the service. It would be nice if they would tell you if they support rsync, scp, NFS, NCPFS, SMB, AFS, Coda, and so on. How are you supposed to get your files to the site? Drag and drop a few thousand times? No thanks.
While I didn't agree with your original imaginary post, it was well written. I would have taken quite some time to write a rebuttal of excellent quality.
As you decided not to post it, the time I would have spent replying has been wasted! Your current post is not worth my intelligent reply so I will just say: "You disappoint me you.. you ninconpoop!"
Thanks.
I would mod you up if I could.
I'm already paying for an always-on broadband connection at home. For no additional cost, I can access as many "Gigabytes of free storage" as I care to hook up to my home system, and I don't have to worry about some corp reading my private documents, either. I don't understand why more people don't do that (or, to put it another way, why there isn't a piece of software that makes doing it easy enough for everyone and their mother). Dynamic IPs are tricky, but the workarounds aren't that hard to come up with.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
xdrive seems to think there's a firewall installed, but there isn't. At least not one that I could find.
From your post it seems like you handle these things a lot better than the IT at my job. At my workplace when we need something IT related (like a certain program or a database server) we will first contact IT through official means, usually without result; often we don't even get a meaningful answer.
Then we will try management, but management doesn't like to talk to IT because they don't understand anything IT says. So this will usually not get us anywhere either.
Finally, we set up something by ourselves and send a request to IT to replace our handywork by something official as soon as possible. This gets us a warning from IT that when it breaks we are on our own. In the beginning we took this seriously and we spent a lot of time fixing problems caused by changes by IT, sometimes even switching to an entirely different program.
But I have found out (through several incidents) that if it breaks it is a problem for IT anyway. Because, since it worked before, management knows that it can work. So they wil set hell loose on IT if they don't make sure it works again within a few days.
Now IT calls us "Yokels", but if they actually listened to us and provided the support we need, we wouldn't be working around them. We wouldn't even do anything IT related at all. Unfortunately this kind of situation doesn't seem to be unique to my company at all.
I spent quite some time looking for a way to run my own web-based file transfer site so accountants could stop e-mailling 10MB data files to each other.
The best I've seen is Boxroom, an OSS Ruby on Rails application for web based file transfer. With the Mongrel web server it does upload progress, recent versions have had in-file search added, and my employer is currently sponsoring the implementation of virtual hosting in it.
I would like more people to know about this program - it's very cool, and more developers on it would be certainly be appreciated by all of us who use it!
check out this blog entry for a large-scale use of s3: http://blogs.smugmug.com/onethumb/2006/08/12/amazo n-s3-the-holy-grail/
Bluehost is a shared hosting site, but it gives me 200GB and 2TB of of transfers per month. I also have an shell account via ssh: nice for scp, manually managing files, editing files using vim, etc.
Please note I did not say emacs sucks, even thou I do think that...
I guess if you have a clue on how to use Linux, this can be your off-site storage unit for about $7/month.
I don't know of any other place that can beat this deal...
I have a machine at home running the Linux iSCSI target, and the iSCSI initiator on my laptop. Mount it up just like local storage. Can even swap to it.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
quote: "They need or want something that you, in your capacity as the provider of IT services, are not providing."
It seems that people many people believe that (their) IT organizations have all the latitude to give their customers whatever they need, much less what they want' but they are just a bunch of lazy, nasty, uncooperative, control freaks who relish the chance to interfere with the work someone is trying to do. (Of course, a LOT of what people are trying to be able to do has nothgin to do with *work* at all, like IM or shopping online, but we'll save that argument for another thread)
The reality *usually* is that IT is hamstrung by budget, policy, justifications, and little things like time and space.
If this thing that is needed is truly needed, then it's up to the 'customer' to go through whatever channels and processes are needed to get that capability implemented. In other words, it has to trickle down from the Top. If access to an external storage solution makes sense to THE BUSINESS and if it can be fit into other considerations, then IT will be *given* the money, manpower, resources, etc., to make it happen. If not, it is NOT the fault of IT.
I get so tired of people who have no idea what it's like to be in IT criticizing things the way they do things. Mostly, but not entirely, it's people who *think* they need something and just want IT to magically pull it out of their asses. And when they can't (no money, no time, violates policy, can't work with existing systems, violates the security provisions that the law requires, etc.) IT gets called blamed. Don't shoot the messenger, people.
quote: "It's the same reason they set up unofficial file servers and install 'unapproved' applications."
Or, they do it because they have no respect for the limitations that companies have to function under. Only a very rare few IT teams LIKE to say No. Most of us actually prefer to make people happy and to help companies succeed. But, there are limits. IT is often put in the position of enforcing the limits someone else has decided on. And then, to make it more fun, the people who made the limits never own them. The CEO, et al, never backs up IT by saying "Hey! Lay off the geeks. They are just doing what we told them to." Instead, IT is the scapegoat, caught in the middle.
"Rather than arrogantly treating those you work with as 'Yokels', you could understand and provide for their needs."
It's not CURRENTLY the common business model for IT to be empowered to, and responsible for, understanding and providing for their needs. For that to be the case and to actually work, IT would have to have a seat at the Board Meeting. Most companies don't include IT as part of the core business decision process. They are step-children with all the responsibility but none of the authority. The Executive Staff (CEO, CTO, CFO, etc. - if there is a CIO he's probably there as a courtesy/figurehead) has to define and authorize what the company needs to get it's business done. If you don't like it when IT says "No", or is forced to break your toy, complain to the people who actually made the decision.
In Nature, stupidity is a capital offense. In human society, too many get off with less than a warning.
quote: "provide instructions for users to import their root cert,"
That's funny. In most organizations, you can't trust some users to follow instructions on how to change their email signature to include their street address or the like and you think you can get people to update their root cert?
In Nature, stupidity is a capital offense. In human society, too many get off with less than a warning.
quote: "In many companies getting an intranet website created on the official webserver requires tons of red tape [...] Then IT wonders why IIS or whatever is running on 47 PCs sitting under desks all over the company, completely unmanaged."
The red tape is very much NOT likely to be IT's fault. It's likely a result of other requirements, processes, policies and such as dictated by the C*O and or law. And not because IT loves to make your life harder.
Some people would rather shortcut their way to getting some pet project a little farther along then to notice the bigger picture.
Yes, I understand, you/we are just trying to meet your own goals and fulfill the expectations and requirements set upon you. It's a survival thing and anything that gets in your way is 'the enemy' by definition. That includes IT. If they can't do what you need on your timetable or whatever, then that puts you in a bad spot.
Perhaps the *real* problem is with our bosses. They want what they want and they don't want to hear any excuses. Even if the excuse is a legitimate matter of policy/budget/staff/etc., and or stems from a decision made above their heads. But, that's a problem with unreasonable bosses - not with IT trying to fuck you.
quote: "Likewise in many companies users get a 25MB email quota or something silly like that, and then IT wonders why so many users find ways to go through proxy servers to get to gmail."
No, we don't wonder. We know that you can't be bothered to manage your email in a reasonable fashion. In your head, servers, disk space, server RAM, HDs, network ports, backup tapes and the IT staff needed to make it all work grow on trees and IT is a bunch of assholes because we simply prefer to mock you while pretending to not be able to pluck another Exchange server out of thin air.
I have NEVER seen an IT organization who held back on something like email quotas when they were given what they need to give the users more. It's almost always due to budget and other constraints (put in place by others). Give me more money, more staff, more tools and I'll give you whatever you want (that is possible).
*sheesh*
In Nature, stupidity is a capital offense. In human society, too many get off with less than a warning.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you are a technical person and like things to work your way, and not xdrives way or mozys way, rsync.net is the way to go.
They are the only offsite backup provider I have found that supports rdiff-backup and duplicity as well as the normal SSH standards (scp, sftp, rsync).
What really did it for me, though, was this:
http://www.rsync.net/philosophy.html
and _especially this_ :
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
Definitely nicer to work in a small company in that regard. I try to make sure the user's have what they need, we don't lock down the machines and we spent the $$$ on Acronis or Ghost to make periodic images of the systems. Most of our users are well-behaved enough now that I don't worry as much. The ones that aren't, I make sure I always know where the "gold" image is for their machine.
As for the firewall we simply tell them: "we know what you're doing".
Now, generally, I don't bother watching the logs to track packets or websites or whatever. But if bandwidth spikes or we start maxing out our line to the public network, the users know that I'm going to start looking for people to name and shame. (I'll actually address the issue privately first.)
In a small company, you can also say directly to the CEO - we can bump up the per-message limit on e-mail to 20MB, but it's going to require us to spend $10k on new server hardware within the year. So do you want us to spend the $10k or do you want to sit down and have a chat with Jane, Bob and Frank?
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
a combination of webdrive http://www.webdrive.com/
(to mount dreamhost like a drive letter)
and vice versa pro http://www.tgrmn.com/
vvp encryption on the dreamhost side only...
works VERY well with one exception, webdrive uses 100% of my uplink, 100-120 kb/s not option to throttle it down.
my temp workaround is that I have VVP set to a max of 30kb/s which means it's slower than the uploads, it releases my bandwidth time to slices of 1/3 available time.
I really need a way to throttle webdrive on it's own.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random