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

Links people links...

[rovingeyes]

Now isn't this link much better?. Why is it so difficult to submit these links instead? Sigh...

Re:Links people links...

[LMacG]

Since it's almost a certainty that the author of the piece submitted the article --cf. "mikemuch writes", "Six Free Online Storage Services - By Michael W. Muchmore" -- one might imagine the point was to gain page hits and ad impressions.

Or you could get a hosting account...

[Paulrothrock]

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.

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: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.

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

[rainman_bc]

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.

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:ssh rsync?

[VE3MTM]

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.

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

[bberens]

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'.

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a developer at Xdrive, we develop the freaking service on MacBook Pro's, but we can't get an OS X client into the feature list. With Apple poised to make major gains against Microsoft re: Vista, I'm floored that we don't consider an OS X client a strategic feature.

Please, please, bitch and moan about it. Louder. Your voices count for more than mine.

Grrr... I was going to provide a link to the community forums website (from http://www.xdrive.com/support), but that's broken at the moment. Give it a day or so and then please try again. Lots of us want an OS X client. It will only happen if Xdrive/AOL management can be convinced of the need.

(AC because attaching my name to this might be a CLM)

Run your own

[Plug]

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!