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."

Comments

Streamload/Mediamax

[RogueyWon]

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.

Online Storage == Awful Idea

[jeevesbond]

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*

Re:Online Storage == Awful Idea

[Stewie241]

In its current form, there are a lot of shortcomings.

But if one were able to build a client that did on the fly encryption/decryption when uploading and downloading, then you could make it much safer. Of course, you would still not put the most sensitive of sensitive documents there (i.e. don't put your password database there), encrypted or not.

Re:Yippee - 6 more sites to add to the "banned" li

[Bonker]

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.

Never worked in IT, have you?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

They need or want something that you, in your capacity as the provider of IT services, are not providing.

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.)

Re:Never worked in IT, have you?

[swb]

You just can't win in IT. If you block access to something, you're all about control and limiting innovation. When something stupid happens, you own the problem 110% because you didn't do enough to prevent it from happening.

What's funny is that nobody seems to think its "unfair" that you can't make yourself more efficient by cutting a hole in the wall and creating your own doorway to the parking lot, but cutting a hole in IT security with filesharing is OK because it makes you more efficient.

I'm sympathetic to the end users as many IT policies do seem irrational, but I'm also sympathetic to IT since its unlikely they have been given a mandate to enable the end users to do whatever they want.

Re:Never worked in IT, have you?

[daigu]

It is funny how people always talk about the best scenario when it comes to IT - like people using gmail instead of work email (leaving out important details like the corporate system is Lotus Notes) or something stupid happening. Rarely do people in IT talk about how they often don't even know what the business problems are for the company, divisions, units and work groups they are providing services for.

Even for those problems that they are aware of, frequently problem solving takes a back-seat to the problems of structure within IT itself (well, the desktop team has to approve it after they get the purchase order for the technology liasion and then it needs to go to the network team for approval before I can do anything), silly procedural rules designed for no-trust situations which ironically create zero trust because of their application (any time we do a change you need to send me two emails the first saying "I've checked the code in pre-production and it should be promoted...blah blah blah), IT arrogance (we do not provide that service and you can't go elsewhere for it), etc.

Sure, people ask for and do stupid things and IT needs to be careful with tracking changes and such - but there is a lot of flat out lying (because it is convenient) and other bullshit that goes on because IT departments forget who their customers are.

Re:Yippee - 6 more sites to add to the "banned" li

[therobloe]

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

Re:Yippee - 6 more sites to add to the "banned" li

[thousandinone]

You are aware that there are costs involved with using an 'official' certificate authority, aren't you? It may not be in the budget.

Re:Absolutely.

[adamfranco]

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.

No need to forgo drag-and-drop. I use Apache-WebDAV over SSL for off-desktop storage. OS X allows you to connect to a WebDAV share just like you would a samba share, and at that point all applications just think it is another drive. There are also a number of dedicated WebDAV clients that can handle all of the file management and permission-setting.

Granted, getting this set up the first time was quite a pain and you also have to do the work maintaining your own server. Once up and running though, it works like a charm.

Re:I surprised they didn't include XDrive.

[popo]

Especially since XDrive has been around since 1997, was one of the original web 1.0
storage pioneers and features excellent OS integration (becoming drive X: on your machine).
It's also both the slickest and most reliable.

And it gives you 5x the storage of the new players.

What these newcomers offer that XDrive doesn't isn't at all clear.

Re:Links people links...

[Jainith]

Or just skip right to the final page...