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."
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'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.
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!
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.
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
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.)
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
How about http://www.rsync.net/?
I have no affiliation with them, and I've never used their service, but it sounds like what you asked for.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
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 are aware that there are costs involved with using an 'official' certificate authority, aren't you? It may not be in the budget.
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...
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
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've been using s3sync to upload/download stuff to Amazon's S3 service for months. It works great. I even use it on Windows (since it's a ruby program, it works anywhere).
There are many graphical managers as well, I use jetS3t, which is a java based gui client.
The huge added bonus (for me) is that with S3 it's trivial to make something public (with or without authentication), or even have it host a torrent.
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!
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.