Google Docs To Host Any File Type

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Docs To Host Any File Type

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @10:37AM from the not-the-g-drive dept.

ezabi writes "According to a post on the official Google blog, in the coming weeks Google Docs will offer to host all file types with a limit of 250 MB, which as they say is larger than the current limit for email attachments. This will have its consequences: paid file sharing will die, more shared pirated material, newer vulnerabilities and malware distribution channels..."

186 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Will these be all public too? by counterplex · 2010-01-12 10:40 · Score: 0

Google's last foray into all-inclusive communications (Voice) resulted in lots of voicemails being made publicly searchable. I wonder if the same fate awaits all your documents. It hasn't happened for the documents that exist already on Google docs but what of the ones that are not created by Google docs and don't have the same rights data associated with them?

--
$x = ($x * 10) % 10 >= 5 ? 1 + int $x : int $x
1. Re:Will these be all public too? by Aeros · 2010-01-12 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  I never really trusted putting any of my documents in google docs at all...then the google voice thing happened and that sealed the deal.
2. Re:Will these be all public too? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-01-12 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing precludes them fucking up; but it should be no harder to attach permissions to an object you upload than to an object you create.
3. Re:Will these be all public too? by EzInKy · 2010-01-12 10:51 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What does it matter if the documents are encrypted? Paid file sharing dying would be a good thing, people shouldn't have to pay to share what is theirs. The only downside I see is increased vulnerabilities.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
4. Re:Will these be all public too? by Aeros · 2010-01-12 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  I would rather it be me screwing up permissions on something than rely on someone else.
5. Re:Will these be all public too? by noidentity · 2010-01-12 10:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Paid file sharing dying would be a good thing, people shouldn't have to pay to share what is theirs.
  
  They cost money because it costs money to share data. Or did you think bandwidth, servers, and storage were free?
6. Re:Will these be all public too? by The+End+Of+Days · 2010-01-12 10:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING should be free. At least for them.
7. Re:Will these be all public too? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-01-12 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Then it sounds like no third party file sharing/storage services are for you.
  
  I was merely noting that the problem of assigning correct permissions to uploaded files is of identical difficulty to the one of assigning correct permissions to files created in google docs.
  
  There is no reason to be especially confident about either; but there is good reason to have equal levels of confidence, however high or low those levels be.
8. Re:Will these be all public too? by OakDragon · 2010-01-12 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Google's last foray into all-inclusive communications (Voice) resulted in lots of voicemails being made publicly searchable. I wonder if the same fate awaits all your documents...
  
  All your documents are belong to us?
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
9. Re:Will these be all public too? by EzInKy · 2010-01-12 11:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They cost money because it costs money to share data. Or did you think bandwidth, servers, and storage were free?
  Users pay their ISP's for the bandwidth, can install a free OSS server on just about any machine, and with 2T drives available store data at a very reasonable cost. Again, vulnerabilities and malware are really the only downsides.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
10. Re:Will these be all public too? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As usual, you can make things as public as you want. After all, they are on-line. If you want to keep them for yourself... keep them in your computer, not "in the cloud".
  Google offers e-mail, is it public? and can you search through it?
  Google offers picture albums (Picasa). Are they public? Can you make them private and unlisted?
  Google already offers google docs. The same thing, you can make them private or public.
  Google voicemail messages were public, because users configured they settings to make them public. Why would this case be different?
11. Re:Will these be all public too? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:13 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING is free. At least for them.
  Fixed that for you. ;)
12. Re:Will these be all public too? by EzInKy · 2010-01-12 11:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING should be free. At least for them.
  Wrong. Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their free software and content.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
13. Re:Will these be all public too? by NeutronCowboy · 2010-01-12 11:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Then install an FTP server on your home connection and share away. You can even get a second connection so that you still have usable internet.
  Sharing your own content is trivial and can be free (for small values of $cost). Sharing your content with the world in a useful way will be very expensive.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
14. Re:Will these be all public too? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  Odd, somehow the sites I don't pay for use all those things too...
15. Re:Will these be all public too? by Dishevel · 2010-01-12 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  So the fact that those idiots publicly posted those voice mails and then Google just indexed them off the site as usual just completely escaped you or did you just want to sound like you knew what you were talking about for some free mod points.
  I hate fucking idiots.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
16. Re:Will these be all public too? by geekmux · 2010-01-12 11:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING should be free. At least for them.
  Wrong. Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their free software and content.
  Ah, let me make that statement a bit more accurate...
  Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their stolen software and pirated content.
  The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.
17. Re:Will these be all public too? by elsJake · 2010-01-12 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  You try and QoS connection requests from all over the world , oh wait , you cant because they're already down the line from your ISP by the time they get to you.(well DUH)
18. Re:Will these be all public too? by EzInKy · 2010-01-12 12:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their stolen software and pirated content.
  Your software was stolen? Are you sure you didn't just misplace it? Scan your drives again to make sure it's really gone.
  
  The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.
  I can see it now. ACTA paragraph 666 - no person shall possess more than 640kb of storage without a license. That, after all, is enough for anybody.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
19. Re:Will these be all public too? by ozmanjusri · 2010-01-12 12:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  I never really trusted putting any of my documents in google docs at all.
  I never really trusted putting any of my documents online at all.
  Not unless I;
  
  wanted them to be seen,
  they were unimportant enough that it didn't matter if they were seen,
  or if I'd encrypted them.
  Putting documents online is putting them in a public space. You only do that if you want them to be available.
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
20. Re:Will these be all public too? by noidentity · 2010-01-12 12:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your software was stolen? Are you sure you didn't just misplace it? Scan your drives again to make sure it's really gone.
  
  Once I found some stolen software and downloaded it so I could burn it on a CD and return it to its owner. He wasn't interested, for some reason. I even offered to mail it to him. I don't think he had bought new software, either, so I guess he just didn't need it anymore. People are confusing when it comes to stolen software.
21. Re:Will these be all public too? by rgo · 2010-01-12 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  because they have no other choice
22. Re:Will these be all public too? by The+End+Of+Days · 2010-01-12 14:07 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I get your point, but did you have to use the most annoying textual construct of the modern internet era to do so?
  It would only be worse if you did one of those snarky parenthetical explanations (read: this shit.)
23. Re:Will these be all public too? by Kleen13 · 2010-01-12 15:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Since Google is a US company, does that mean that any documents I store online from Canada are subject to perusal by DHS as well?
  
  --
  That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
24. Re:Will these be all public too? by x2A · 2010-01-12 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps he was more concerned over the fact that his right to choose how his software is copied ("copy" + "right" = "copyright") was taken when the software was copied, and unlike the software, which can be duplicated, the right to control the copying of your created works, and other people copying it without your permission, are mutually exclusive. Just because he was left with a copy of the software, doesn't mean nothing was taken that he wasn't left with ("copyright" - "right" = "copy") I understand that concept is quite abstracty and beyond people who can only deal with metaphors involving cars :-/
  Oh, whether you think a person should have to right to control the use of their creation is another matter. Copyright means they have a legal right to, I'm not suggesting whether that right is either ethical or not. But you cannot argue that nothing is taken that the creator is thus prevented from using, as demonstrated above.
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
25. Re:Will these be all public too? by x2A · 2010-01-12 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, suggesting that somebody's future predicting powers may not be 100% accurate 100% of the time is all the pleasure some people have in their lives goddamnit, don't take that away.
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
26. Re:Will these be all public too? by RandomUsername99 · 2010-01-12 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  I never really trusted putting any of my documents on computers at all. Just in a locked safe, sitting in a larger locked safe, in a secure room in a non-government, non-corporate secure facility with access by nobody except me.
  Ha! I out-neckbearded you both.
27. Re:Will these be all public too? by tehcyder · 2010-01-12 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their free software and content.
  
  But hardware wants to be free too!
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
28. Re:Will these be all public too? by tehcyder · 2010-01-12 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  Your software was stolen? Are you sure you didn't just misplace it? Scan your drives again to make sure it's really gone.
  
  If someone has a pirated copy of Photoshop, they have deprived Adobe of money just as much as if they had shoplifted the dvd, and it is absurd to say that it is only the marginal cost of media, packaging, distribution, etc.
  If I photocopy a book from the library, I deprive the author, publisher and so on of money.
  I don't care how technical you want to get about the definition of theft, depriving someone of money is wrong.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
29. Re:Will these be all public too? by joaobranco · 2010-01-12 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  I don't care how technical you want to get about the definition of theft, depriving someone of money is wrong.
  If someone creates and sells a software that replaces Photoshop, it will also deprive Adobe of money. It is not the act of depriving someone of (potential) money that is wrong (although it may be illegal). You don't have a "natural" right to force someone to give you money, you know, although you may convince the state to grant you that benefit.
  Intelectual/Imaginary Property is a fiction. It may be a useful fiction, but as with all fictions, once you try to extend it and to treat it as reality, it breaks and loses much of its usefulness.
30. Re:Will these be all public too? by tehcyder · 2010-01-13 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.
  
  I can see it now. ACTA paragraph 666 - no person shall possess more than 640kb of storage without a license. That, after all, is enough for anybody
  
  As you presumably know, GP was pointing out that what you called "free software" is not what would normally be meant by that phrase. There is FOSS and I suppose freeware, but copying commercial software does not mean it is free, except as in (stolen) beer.
  It is extremely disingenuous to slip in a phrase like "free software" unless you are deliberately trying for an anti-Linux troll.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
31. Re:Will these be all public too? by Bert64 · 2010-01-13 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  You are only depriving them if you would have purchased the software in the first place. Most people who pirate photoshop are actually depriving a cheaper or free program of userbase and/or revenue.
  Very few people need photoshop, most people just want it because it's well known. Most of those people have little or no need to manipulate images, and would easily be able to fulfil their needs with a whole host of free or cheap software, eg GIMP.
  I know someone who uses a pirated photoshop for resizing images, yes resizing is all he ever does with it... If he was unable to pirate photoshop, he would have downloaded something else for free (legal or otherwise). He doesn't want to use gimp or any one of the other free tools available that are capable of resizing images because he's heard of photoshop, knows its expensive and considers anything with a pricetag of 0 to be inferior (and no, he has never even tried to use gimp or any other free programs because he thinks they're shit).
  The same is true of a lot of other commercial software, and it's why vendors often turn a blind eye to piracy, especially by individuals, because a pirate copy is still more profitable for them (increases mindshare, one less customer/user for a competitor) than users migrating to something else.
  As for the "marginal cost of media etc" comment... In any other market (eg hardware) margins start off very fat to pay for the initial development costs (the early adopters tax) and then plummet as the product ages and competition kicks up, such that margins tend to be extremely thin on most hardware products.
  Software seems to stay in the "screw the early adopters" phase, with extremely high margins relative to the production costs. Hopefully in a few years the market will mature, and software vendors won't be able to continue screwing their customers like this.
  When that happens, piracy will decrease massively too, you only get copied merchandise in markets where goods are being sold with ridiculous and unrealistic margins... In any other market, you may pay a small premium for a brand but that small premium is not worth the risk of producing counterfeit goods.
  That's why you get counterfeit prada, but you don't get counterfeit walmart clothes...
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
32. Re:Will these be all public too? by Bert64 · 2010-01-13 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  The connection requests will be coming down, and your downstream is likely to be far higher than your upstream for a typical home connection... Sure, you can't control the rate of incoming SYN packets (new connections), but you can throttle the rate that existing connections send ACKs, and you can throttle the rate with which you send data (over your presumably slower upstream).
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
33. Re:Will these be all public too? by InterStellaArtois · 2010-01-13 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  But using Google Docs is not the same as putting your docs online. Unless you also think that using web-based email is "putting your emails online". By default google docs are viewable only within your account (unless you choose to share them), but surely you'd have guessed this?
  
  Of course, something could go wrong as it did with Voice, but you assess the risk. Just don't use Google Docs for those trade secrets, or blackmailable material :) It's actually a pretty handy tool, I use it instead of the txt files I'd have sat on the desktop of various computers - project notes, todo lists etc.
34. Re:Will these be all public too? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-13 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  Funny thing is that it's much more likely that I'll fuck up, rather than Google!
  
  It makes me feel safe and warm with Google managing my entire life, so, with that in mind:
  
  I, for one, welcome our....yada yada
35. Re:Will these be all public too? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-13 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  pfft. Mine are in a safe insinde a safe inside a VAULT inside another vault.
  how 'bout THAT?
36. Re:Will these be all public too? by AmiMoJo · 2010-01-13 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Sharing your content with the world in a useful way will be very expensive.
  Isn't that what Bittorrent is supposed to solve?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
37. Re:Will these be all public too? by raynet · 2010-01-13 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  To be even more accurate; stolen = copyright infringed, pirated = selling those "stolen" goods. It isn't piracy if there is no monetary gain.
  
  --
  - Raynet --> .
38. Re:Will these be all public too? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-13 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  I have a 1 inch square box with 2 foot thick steel walls. I can't fit much in there, so I just turned it inside out welded the door shut and now have the entire UNIVERSE (except that 1 inch cube) inside of my vault.
39. Re:Will these be all public too? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-13 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  I need your bank name, account number, sort code and branch then please.
  C'mon. Don't be depriving me of that money of yours that's rightly mine!
40. Re:Will these be all public too? by aix+tom · 2010-01-13 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  All this technological overkill these days.
  I just ate all my important documents.
41. Re:Will these be all public too? by noidentity · 2010-01-13 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying that it wasn't the software that was stolen, it was his right to choose how it's copied? But that's not exactly correct either, because he can still make (or not make) copies as he pleases. He just didn't get to stop me from making that one copy. Why would he have wanted to do such a thing? So he could get payment in return. So he lost the ability to get payment from me, short of suing me. There are of course other ways he might also not get payment, like if I got a competing program, or decided I didn't need the program in the first place. It's slippery (not that you were arguing the validity of copyright, just the technicalities).
42. Re:Will these be all public too? by adamchou · 2010-01-13 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure this guy would have appreciated your kind gesture
43. Re:Will these be all public too? by Thiez · 2010-01-13 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  > I don't care how technical you want to get about the definition of theft, depriving someone of money is wrong.
  If I grow my own vegetables, I won't buy the vegetables I would have bought otherwise, thereby depriving the supermarket of money! Obviously growing vegetables is wrong.
44. Re:Will these be all public too? by x2A · 2010-01-13 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  "...it was his right to choose how it's copied? But that's not exactly correct" ...and then...
  "He just didn't get to stop me from making that one copy"
  See the contradiction? Remembering that I'm not arguing ethical grounds here, just demonstrating the legal (which I won't try drill in cuz you understand the difference), where 'mostly's and 'yeah but's just don't fit in, because then, who gets to decide who the "yeah but it's just one person" is? What's stopping everyone from wanting to be that "just one person"? The law doesn't define what the average should be, because that's subjective, instead it must define the line. In the case of copyright, the law doesn't grant the copyright holder control over most of the distribution of their works, it grants a time limited monopoly right... mono = one, not mostly one but a little bit under but you won't notice it. Because it is absolutely defined, as long as our observations of reality are in agreement, we cannot argue over whether reality fits the definition or not... slighly less than all, by the most smallest amount, can not be equal to all, for any value of all.
  So yes, trying not to repeat myself too much (long day so apologies if I am) you can see that in the context of what is legally defined, it has nothing to do with how much money they could've made, the size of the sale that was "lost", however much the MAFIAA focus on the money, only made 99bajillion dollars this year instead of 100 (how my heart doth bleed) ... the deal is, a protected monopoly for the first x years, in exchange for it going public domain forever after that. The deal is between the artist/creator/inventor/etc and the greater society, as represented* by common law (*we are talking very ideally here!). By being the "just one person" who doesn't honour that deal, and making an unauthorised copy, you're welshing on that deal, on behalf of the society.
  One final point I do want to make clear (will try keep it short!) is that I am guilty of doing this myself. I've downloaded and used stuff that there's no way I could afford. Even times where I've felt it's been necessary (without going into life story enough to explain 'necessary') I'm still not going to pretend that it's right, but I still do it, sometimes just for a laugh (like download a funny film when I'm bummed out that I know I don't have money to pay for). I'm not a bad person. I'm not perfect. I'm honest though. I say this because I think it emphasises how much what I say isn't me casting judgement... we're just not a perfect species! Better to put the effort into making up for it than trying to hide it.
  End of rant *lol*
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
45. Re:Will these be all public too? by noidentity · 2010-01-13 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, thanks for your patient reply. I kept going into the wrong mode of argument for some reason. As you say, if the law says that a copyright violation is making a copy without authorization of the copyright holder, then making even a single copy is a copyright violation (aside from fair use, but let's assume that didn't apply here).
46. Re:Will these be all public too? by bhiestand · 2010-01-13 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.
  At 8TB I think it's fairly obvious that they're collecting/hoarding.
  If the original ripper only bought his copy so that he could crack it and share it with the scene, and nobody who got access to it would have bought it otherwise, doesn't that mean the software manufacturer is UP one sale?
  
  --
  SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
What? by FlyingBishop · 2010-01-12 10:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is the summary a troll or just an attempt at sarcasm?
There are plenty of free filesharing sites, and 250mb is pretty paltry by their standards, not to mention the fact that Google has pretty decent standards for who it lets have an account. Given the amount of information they have on everyone, it's the last site you want to know if you're doing something illegal.
Unless I guess you count .gov domains.
1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 10:53 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yeah, come on... "newer vulnerabilities and malware distribution channels"? Because Google is known for loads of vulnerabilities in their systems? I can't remember that many. (Yeah, I have distant memory of some GMail vulnerability long ago... There have been some. But honestly, they have awesome track record.) Or because viruses and the like take 250mb these days?
2. Re:What? by PCM2 · 2010-01-12 11:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  250mb is pretty paltry by their standards
  It's not 250MB total storage space. It's 250MB maximum per file. It's probably true that most e-mail clients/servers do a poor job of handling 250MB attachments. In that sense, this is probably a good thing; we've all complained about the coworker who sends out a 15MB movie of their kids playing with the dog to a mailing list, but what option do most average users have? Even if they know what FTP is, they don't own any servers. If Google is going to handhold consumers through the process of storing big files in the Web instead of sending them as attachments, I say bravo.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
3. Re:What? by PCM2 · 2010-01-12 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and currently SkyDrive only supports files up to 50MB in size.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
4. Re:What? by FlyingBishop · 2010-01-12 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  I see your SkyDrive and raise you a Mediafire 200mb... so I did overstate in calling 250mb paltry, but it's in no way revolutionary.
5. Re:What? by Paradigm_Complex · 2010-01-12 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Is the summary a troll or just an attempt at sarcasm?
  It's an attempt to rationalize the situation, while interpreting the facts as the "ezabi" and/or the editors see them. Nothing so heinous as a troll, or overplayed as sarcasm.
  
  There are plenty of free filesharing sites
  All of which that I've seen have some limitations. Either you pay, or your bandwidth is capped, or you're limited to $files per $timeperiod, or $megabytes per $timeperiod, etc. As ezabi and/or the editors and I see it, it's unlikely Google is going to be quite as annoying or limited as they are with this regard. It's willing to subsidize the cost of the bandwidth for mindshare and long-term money. (ie, "Google's file service is so great I'll probably just use their other services too"). A free service from a household name with less frustrating limitations could very well grab the market.
  
  and 250mb is pretty paltry by their standards
  When you hit the filesize limit at most other file sharing sights, it's common to split the file into multiple files (usually via rar). That should work here - the limit isn't a big issue if Google lets you download the partial-files one after another. Consider youtube's length limit, and how it's circumvented by simply making a play list with multiple limited-length videos.
  
  Even more important is the likely scenario that Google ups the limit as the service matures. Remember how much gmail used to allow at first? Take a look at what they offer now. It's not a reach to imagine a similar thing happening here. Harddrives are cheap, and Google has tones of experience scaling that up.
  
  not to mention the fact that Google has pretty decent standards for who it lets have an account.
  
  I'm guessing you've never read any comment ever on youtube? Google fights bots, but with humans it plays fast and loose with accounts, I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise.
  
  Given the amount of information they have on everyone, it's the last site you want to know if you're doing something illegal.
  Despite the fact that they eventually gave in to China for censorship and various music and movie IP's on youtube, Google has been a pretty big advocate of such freedoms (well, from Big Brother and Big Media - not necessarily from Big Search Engine/Advertisement Service). They fought China, Viacom, et al on the issues before giving in, and they've fought the US on such issue as well (no links handy, hopefully another /.'er can oblige). Honestly, I'd be more inclined to trust Google with my info then a random filesharing service, if I had to trust anyone.
  
  But here's the cool thing - you can log out, or make an account just for shady stuff and switch between the two. Heck, doesn't Chrome have some sort of privacy mode? Yes, Google could match the IP with past account info and maybe put two and two together. Even so, the idea that you're using Google vs $random_fileshare_sight doesn't really increase the odds of getting caught.
  
  Or you could just keep it legal d:
  
  It's possible Google is willing to ruin its still pretty solid reputation for user-rights by using this to hunt down illegal file sharers, and it's possible that Google will put huge limits and allow other services to compete, but those are both pretty long shots if you think it through and don't know anything relevant that I don't.
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
6. Re:What? by PCM2 · 2010-01-12 12:17 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Nah, and it's also arbitrary. If it supported files up to 350MB, that might be big enough to fit an hour-long TV program encoded in MPEG-4 using typical TV-trader settings. That would open up more copyright issues for Google, so one easy stopgap is to limit the maximum file size. Mind you, this won't stop anyone from uploading RAR sets, but at least people won't be streaming those direct from Google Docs.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
7. Re:What? by Snaller · 2010-01-12 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, so tell us about some? They all allow you to download very little, unless you pay for it - if you don't you can download once an hour something like that. Knowing google, there won't be such limits.
  
  --
  If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  There are plenty of free filesharing sites, and 250mb is pretty paltry by their standards
  250 millibits is paltry by anyone's standards.
9. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  JDownloader support along with CAPTCHA defeater coming in 3... 2... 1...
10. Re:What? by potat0man · 2010-01-12 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  we've all complained about the coworker who sends out a 15MB movie of their kids playing with the dog to a mailing list, but what option do most average users have?
  
  youtube?
11. Re:What? by Blaskowicz · 2010-01-12 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  JDownloader plainly refused to work for me (both linux and windows). But for CAPTCHA defeating software, and downloading lists of megaupload files, google did its own tool and published it : plowshare. It's a bunch of bash scripts, relying on a few dependancies - very clean and nice piece of software.
12. Re:What? by tehcyder · 2010-01-13 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  They fought China, Viacom, et al on the issues before giving in
  
  More accurately: they fought China, Viacom, et al on the issues up until the point it was going to cost them serious money before giving in.
  Oh, and bowing to censorship by China is in a totally different league from complying with legitimate copyright concerns.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
13. Re:What? by Bert64 · 2010-01-13 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Most warez comes chopped into small rar files anyway, chopping it up into 250mb chunks is not going to be hard for warez groups.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
This changes things? by L3370 · 2010-01-12 10:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

p2p users are targeted heavily by the anti piracy groups because p2p users are comprised largly by individuals with very shallow pockets.Google could potentially even the playing field here.

...Not to say that Google is doing it for this reason...or that piracy is justified. Just saying a company with this much influence could change the media industry's approach on combatting illegal activities.
1. Re:This changes things? by westlake · 2010-01-12 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  p2p users are targeted heavily by the anti piracy groups because p2p users are comprised largly by individuals with very shallow pockets. Google could potentially even the playing field here.
  Avatar grossed $1 billion dollars in less than three weeks.
  Tell me again about the level playing field.
  Tell me again why Google wants to become Ground Zero for every fifty megaton bomb the rights holders choose to drop.
2. Re:This changes things? by AnotherUsername · 2010-01-12 12:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Perhaps those p2p users could simply purchase those movies that they wish to have. Or, even, get a Netflix account. But I suppose that 'Fighting the Man' has a better ring to it.
  
  --
  I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
3. Re:This changes things? by sebastian_proteus · 2010-01-12 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Why didn't I think of that?! Let me register for Netflix.... oh wait, only available in USA. No, I don't want to buy the DVD or Bluray, not at these prices - and how come all these newly released discs cost the same, don't most countries have laws against price fixing?
4. Re:This changes things? by the_womble · 2010-01-12 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Great way to miss the point.
  He was talking about why the industry chooses to target a particular group of infringers.
  You are talking about whether they are justified in infringing or not.
5. Re:This changes things? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-13 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  thelen.shar@gmail.com - Thelen says:
  The problem is many of the movies cannot be purchased in many countries. I love it how you think America is the only country....
  How do you think Egyptians will get those movies???
  I'm against stealing, but movie piracy is not stealing, it is piracy. And given those industries continue to post record profits, it is easy to see piracy has no affect....
6. Re:This changes things? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-13 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Netflix isn't available outside of the US.
  Last time i checked US is quite small portion of all humans on this planet, and definitely not 100% of internet users are in US.
  So are you saying, move to the US, so we can sue your sorry ass? ;)
7. Re:This changes things? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-13 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Why didn't I think of that?! Let me register for Netflix.... oh wait, only available in USA. No, I don't want to buy the DVD or Bluray, not at these prices - and how come all these newly released discs cost the same, don't most countries have laws against price fixing?
  Netflix is available in Canada too, though I doubt that helps.
8. Re:This changes things? by tehcyder · 2010-01-13 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  p2p users are targeted heavily by the anti piracy groups because p2p users are comprised largly by individuals with very shallow pockets
  
  That makes no sense, did you mean deep pockets?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
9. Re:This changes things? by Bert64 · 2010-01-14 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Reference the "shallow pockets" comment again... Many of these people simply cannot afford to buy the movies they watch... Unemployed people and kids typically have plenty of time to watch movies but insufficient money to pay for them etc.
  When i was young, i could barely afford a computer, pirated games were the only way i could have anything to play on it, and there were people worse off than me who couldn't afford a computer at all. Hardware has got much cheaper, but software and movies haven't.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Let's hope for djvu by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 10:49 · Score: 0

right now it still says
"Sorry, we do not currently support 'djvu' files"
All my textbooks are in djvu format and a google viewer for them would be great!
1. Re:Let's hope for djvu by amicusNYCL · 2010-01-12 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't expect viewers, this sounds like just a file hosting service, with certain formats viewable online. It doesn't necessarily mean that any format you upload will be viewable online.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

> host all file types with a limit of 250 MB,
Can we just use split to store larger files ?
split -a 5 -b 250000000 bigfile

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
1. Re:About split by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  If google offers 250 MB a file where quantity of files is limitless then it would be quite good. But you'll probably be going against your overall gmail quota.
2. Re:About split by QuantumLeaper · 2010-01-12 10:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Zip, Rar or some of file compression program will split files will work also.
3. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  > Zip, Rar or some of file compression program will split files will work also.
  tar -zc bigfile | split -a 5 -b 250000000 -
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
4. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  My gmail quota is currently 7.4 GB which is about 29 X a 250MB files.
  Note that I barely use Google for anything, nobody writes to my gmail account, I use it mostly for testing when I ever use it.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
5. Re:About split by Tubal-Cain · 2010-01-12 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  How would our non-linux users put the file back together?
  For that matter, how would a Linux user put it together? dd?
6. Re:About split by John+Hasler · 2010-01-12 12:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  > For that matter, how would a Linux user put it together? dd?
  man cat
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
7. Re:About split by isj · 2010-01-12 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  For that matter, how would a Linux user put it together? dd?
  cat
8. Re:About split by rfugger · 2010-01-12 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Google docs even lets you organize split files in a folder and share the whole lot together. Death to rapidshare!
9. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 12:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  assuming that you are in an empty directory:
  split -a 5 -b 250000000 sourcedir/bigfile
  cat * > bigfile
  in Windows:
  type * > bigfile
  Gzipped version:
  tar -zc sourcedir/bigfile | split -a 5 -b 250000000 -
  cat * | tar -zt 1> bigfile
  P.S. I use -a 5 to backup entire disk images in 50MB files, -a 2 is usually the default. 2 will support up to 26*26 = 676 files in your archive.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
10. Re:About split by mweather · 2010-01-12 12:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You must work for a hard drive manufacturer.
  Here's the correct way to do it:
  tar -zc bigfile | split -a 5 -b 262144000 -
11. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  cat * | tar -zx 1> bigfile
  t only list the content of the archive ;-))
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
12. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 12:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nope, sorry, I do this on purpose to insure I never go above the actual limit. Who knows, maybe a hard drive manufacturer implemented the quota scheme ;-))
  I am fully aware that my files will be slightly less than 250MB and this is exactly what I want ;-))
  Nice try although...
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
13. Re:About split by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 14:03 · Score: 0
  
  *facepalm*
  (1) making a tar archive is stupid on only one file. There's a reason we have separate tar and gzip.
  (2) since big files are usually already compressed, it's stupid to try to gzip them. or, if you have a big .wav, you should use flac
  (3) no one else in the thread caught the above two points, thus proving that /. is dead as a technology discussion board
14. Re:About split by Sir_Lewk · 2010-01-12 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Whenever I see those used, it's generally with files that are already compressed anyways. Seems like it's just adding overhead and complication.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
15. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  tar -zc bigdir | split -a 5 -b 250000000 -
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
16. Re:About split by chainLynx · 2010-01-12 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well also tar doesn't produce any output to stdout, so this will create an empty bigfile... use the -O option for that. cat * | tar -zxO > bigfile
17. Re:About split by swillden · 2010-01-12 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  GNU tar defaults to stdin/stdout if the TAPE environment variable is unset. It's not good to rely on that in scripts that need to be portable but it's handy on the command line.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
18. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  he, he ;-))
  I did some cut and paste from some script I setup to backup my file systems, my mistake.
  I use:
  tar -X exclude -zpsSc --numeric-owner ...
  to backup file systems while not mounted.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
19. Re:About split by Blakey+Rat · 2010-01-12 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  Someone explain to me why this is "insightful?" Please?
  
  --
  Comment of the year
20. Re:About split by pydev · 2010-01-12 16:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yes. I doubt the file size limit is there because Google doesn't like big files, it's there because it's hard on the infrastructure to upload/download bigger files in one step.
21. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-12 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  > Someone explain to me why this is "insightful?" Please?
  I do not know for sure either, maybe because some linux users did not know about split... I mean typical users are used to have this included in the archiving program (winrar, etc...) instead of having to use yet another program...
  OR
  mentioning that you could split files with the program of your choice to circumvent the 250MB limit...
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
22. Re:About split by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2010-01-12 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  What? Why?
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
23. Re:About split by pmontra · 2010-01-12 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  You may want to add some "gpg -e" between the endpoints of that pipe, unless you really trust google not to look into your stuff.
24. Re:About split by marcosdumay · 2010-01-13 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why the hell are you people using tar if it is a single file anyway? It is not going into a serial device, is it?
  
  --
  Rethinking email
25. Re:About split by mweather · 2010-01-13 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  There's not much sensitive data I have that is over 250MB. That size of a file is generally an app, or a video. Other than sex tapes, I can't think of any home movies I'd object to google seeing. I already upload them to Youtube.
26. Re:About split by pmontra · 2010-01-13 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking about backing up files over there so I was in an encryption mindset. Anyway I won't upload anything to Google I don't have a copyright or a license for. They seem to be good at finding things :-)
27. Re:About split by StikyPad · 2010-01-13 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  man bear pig?
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
28. Re:About split by StikyPad · 2010-01-13 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  :::cricket, cricket, cricket:::
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
29. Re:About split by mrbobjoe · 2010-01-13 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  type * > bigfile
  Is this binary safe? Windows stdout defaults to text mode, I assume type works that way too. On Windows I've always used copy /b file1 + file2 bigfile
30. Re:About split by ls671 · 2010-01-13 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  > Is this binary safe?
  Yes, in which way did you expect "type" to modify the output ?
  ~$ md5sum vncviewer.exe
  d7ff34495b0ecf078fbfb5194e11c61b vncviewer.exe
  Z:\>type vncviewer.exe > vncviewertest.exe
  ~$ md5sum vncviewertest.exe
  d7ff34495b0ecf078fbfb5194e11c61b vncviewertest.exe
  ~$ diff vncviewer.exe vncviewertest.exe
  ~$
  ~$ ls -l vncviewer*
  -rwxr--r-- 1 ls prev 274432 Feb 7 2007 vncviewer.exe*
  -rwxr--r-- 1 ls prev 274432 Jan 13 18:16 vncviewertest.exe*
  Z:\>copy /b vncviewer.exe + vncviewertest.exe vncviewertest2.exe
  Z:\>type vncviewer.exe vncviewertest.exe > vncviewertest3.exe
  ~$ diff vncviewertest2.exe vncviewertest3.exe
  ~$
  ~$ md5sum vncviewertest2.exe vncviewertest3.exe
  243d0cc868e49d0fab9c7f6484b19493 vncviewertest2.exe
  243d0cc868e49d0fab9c7f6484b19493 vncviewertest3.exe
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
First Question, by Icegryphon · 2010-01-12 10:49 · Score: 1

When do we start getting to download Fansubs from google too?
1. Re:First Question, by robot256 · 2010-01-12 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sucks for the HD releases that are 350MB per episode though...have to get better compression for them.
2. Re:First Question, by cstdenis · 2010-01-12 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Torrents are easier.
  
  --
  1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
3. Re:First Question, by Icegryphon · 2010-01-12 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  IRC is quicker.
  =P
4. Re:First Question, by epp_b · 2010-01-12 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Torrents are easier.
  Torrents are slower.
5. Re:First Question, by Ziekheid · 2010-01-12 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Torrents? IRC? USENET? Sorry guys, cant hear you over my 10Gbit fxp transer. * measures e-cock *
6. Re:First Question, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  Knock knock. Who's there? Fedex. Fedex who? Fedex with a truck full of 2TB hard disks.
7. Re:First Question, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Usenet is faster and easier.
8. Re:First Question, by Per+Wigren · 2010-01-13 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  350MB HD releases? HD releases (of TV series) are usually 1.09 GB or 1.3 GB for 720p and 2.6 GB per episode for 1080p.
  
  --
  My other account has a 3-digit UID.
9. Re:First Question, by robot256 · 2010-01-13 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I meant 1280x720 pixel H.264 encodings of fansubbed anime shows, which presumably compress better than live TV because of the way they are drawn and shaded.
Microsoft has something similar by PCM2 · 2010-01-12 10:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Microsoft is moving into the ad-supported online hosting biz with SkyDrive. Looking at my SkyDrive right now, it tells me I have 24.99GB available space (I'm not really using it for anything). Among other uses, once Office 2010 ships, SkyDrive will be a portal to the Office 2010 Web Apps. If you upload Office documents to your SkyDrive, you will be able to click on them and view/edit them in your browser, without owning your own copy of Office.

--
Breakfast served all day!
1. Re:Microsoft has something similar by Ethanol-fueled · 2010-01-12 11:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  Heh, It would take 25 GB of free storage just to lure me back to Windows Live. Since I don't have enough time to look into it now, could you answer some basic questions for us such as:
  
  Requirements. Besides having a Windows live account, is there other software needed(IN short, will it work with Linux)?
  File upload limit. 1 TiB capacity is useless if the upload limit is only 5MiB per file.
  Other gotchas...like, is it a trial service where you have to haggle with a foreign call center to opt-out before they start charging you 50 bucks a month?
  Etc.
2. Re:Microsoft has something similar by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Upload size is limited to 50 MB per file
3. Re:Microsoft has something similar by Jorl17 · 2010-01-12 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  Hah! Suckers!
  Mod me down you shall, mod me down...
  
  --
  Have you heard about SoylentNews?
4. Re:Microsoft has something similar by PCM2 · 2010-01-12 11:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As the AC below said, files can be up to 50MB each (for now... I see no reason why Microsoft wouldn't up it to compete with Google).
  It will work on Linux. It works fine with Firefox, and it even works on Chrome (even though Chrome is not officially supported). I think pretty much any standards-compliant browser should work (though I seem to remember I might have had a problem or two with Konqueror, even though Safari is one of the officially-supported browsers). IE users get a fancier upload tool via ActiveX, but that seems to be about it.
  At present, it's sort of a "trial" in the sense that everything is pretty much still in beta. But Microsoft's stated intent is for everything to be ad-supported. I think the idea is to get initial revenue from ad sales, then hook customers into Microsoft's commercial desktop software.
  On the downside, I didn't think the SkyDrive UI was all that impressive. Google Docs changes things up by presenting files as a chronological series based on what you've accessed most recently, kind of like an email inbox. SkyDrive tries to simulate the files-and-folders desktop paradigm, but it's really just for show. You don't have any of the flexibility of being able to drag and drop files, for example. It's a lot of clicking and waiting for page refreshes.
  The UI for the Office Web Apps really is very slick, though, and they also seem to work fine with any modern, standards-compliant browser. (And that means not with IE6 -- it's not supported.)
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
5. Re:Microsoft has something similar by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Requirements - just a Live ID - the website works fine with Linux and Firefox.
  Upload limit - I believe it's 50 MB per file max. They'll probably raise it to match Google's 250 MB limit if people complain.
  Other gotchas - not really...if you want to control access, the recipient has to have a Live ID. If you want to make it public, they don't. No trial, no cost, just free with advertisements.
6. Re:Microsoft has something similar by david.given · 2010-01-12 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Other gotchas - not really...if you want to control access, the recipient has to have a Live ID. If you want to make it public, they don't. No trial, no cost, just free with advertisements.
  To me the big gotcha is that there's no access API. I'd love to use SkyDrive as an online backup service --- with encrypted files, natch --- but there's just no way of getting stuff there other than via the web interface.
  What I'd really like is one of these services to adopt rsync, but it ain't going to happen...
This will also enable terrorists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 10:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Before evil google did this evil thing, terrorists were forced to use rar to chunk their nefarious plans into sizes small enough for email attachments, or use horrible file sharing services like rapidshare which only makes them hate the west even more. Now their plans for global sharia will be made easier thanks to their malevolent brothers-in-arms over at google.
I hope those evil doers over at live workspace don't read this news because sharepoint is an even eviler tool for pirates and malware authors and satan himself.
1. Re:This will also enable terrorists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-13 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  global sharia
  Hey, cool name for a p2p network! XD
Think tabloid headlines by SmallFurryCreature · 2010-01-12 10:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The headline and summary has to attract eyeballs, more eyeballs, more posts, more activity more ads being viewed, more income.
I believe Miranda Hart's christmas special had a parody on a BBC prog, "Can twitter kill you". Reporter going around with ever more suggestive overvoice "do you know that right now your child is dying from twitter in this school", Worried Mom: "This isn't my child's school".
Simply stating that you can now store 250mb on your google account in a single file (wonder what the total limit will be) is amazing. Some HD maker must have had a very nice christmas.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
docs is getting some microsoft office flaws by jollyreaper · 2010-01-12 11:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

As in "bugs or missing features that are existing now for years without being addressed."
The biggest shortcoming I see is a lack of proper versioning. Docs will save every stupid edit you make every few seconds creating hundreds and hundreds of divergent versions. Utterly useless for tracking changes in drafts over time. The solution is fairly simple. You get a button up at the top that tells you which draft you're in. Click on it and you can spawn a new draft. So you start with your rough draft. When that's complete, you say "new draft" and here's your second draft. You can invite people to comment on a draft by draft basis. If you'd like, you could saw "I'm spawning off Joe's draft since he's going to make edits." If he's not going to edit, just comment, then you can let him have a go at the second draft. Then you can move on to your third draft, fourth, etc.
At this point in time the only solution is to manually create a new file called second draft, third draft, keep them all in the project folder and then manually compare changes. Kind of defeats the aweseomeness of docs here. Of the features I use in Word, this is the only place where Word has docs beat. Of course, nobody I know can use the comments and revisioning tools worth a damn so I'm not really getting proper mileage out of them. *sigh*

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
1. Re:docs is getting some microsoft office flaws by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  SharePoint has and more in baked-in. Minor versions are treated as drafts (usually visible only by editors) and major versions are published to all. Best of all you can edit the documents right from with-in Word, Excel, or whatever. It's actually pretty awesome and imho much more usable than Google Docs for business.
2. Re:docs is getting some microsoft office flaws by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 20:00 · Score: 0
  
  My absolute ABSOLUTE favorite is saving a one page resume to pdf...if you're anywhere near the bottom, you get a nice extra blank page....looks real professional.
3. Re:docs is getting some microsoft office flaws by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 21:44 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The solution is fairly simple.
  They could implement the Wave "version" system. It is actually pretty damn decent at tracking changes.
  A slider could easily fit in the the interface without taking up much space, on the same level as the menus in fact, fits nicely up there.
  Instead of playback, they could just have arrows at either side to allow you to browse 1 change at a time. (same goes for Wave actually, arrows would be much more useful)
  See, Wave wasn't entirely porn, bombing and slow speeds... (well, admittedly all that on the public waves, private waves are fantastic)
4. Re:docs is getting some microsoft office flaws by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-14 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  Have you tried www.redliner.com? You can take a document and start a new editing "cycle" with other users, then once all the changes have been made and approved (or at some other interim point), "publish" a new version. It also has very powerful commenting, change-tracking, and collaboration features. You can also upload non-Redliner files to your shared workspace.
Down with Rapidshare! by epp_b · 2010-01-12 11:02 · Score: 1

I read "paid file sharing will die", yelped a heartfelt cheer and forgot to read the rest.
Re:with limit of 250MB by amicusNYCL · 2010-01-12 11:03 · Score: 1

How does a per-file limit of 250MB stop any of the mentioned things from happening?

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
So this is like Ubuntu One? by Rix · 2010-01-12 11:05 · Score: 1, Informative

Except 1/8th the size?
1. Re:So this is like Ubuntu One? by Rebelgecko · 2010-01-12 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ubuntu One is 2GB total. This service is 1/8 of the size per file . Presumably, you will be able to have more than 8 files uploaded.
  
  --
  CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
2. Re:So this is like Ubuntu One? by benking · 2010-01-13 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Do the Math. Ubuntu One Chanrges $10 for 50GB. For the same 50 GB Google charges $12.50 a year.
counterplex the idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Boggle.
It is so sad to get these reminders of just what a bunch of ignorant people fill the Net like counterplex.
Let's just refresh everyone's memory of searchable Google Voice:
* Google implemented search for Google Voice for people who decided to make their stuff public
* Dumbasses in the media tried to spin it as some sort of privacy violation
* Articles came out stating why the idiots babbling about privacy violation were spewing garbage since the only Google Voice stuff being indexed was stuff people decided to make public
* Same dumbasses in the media came out with 'yeah, but...I still want to be mad at Google followup articles'
Idiots like counterplex obviously just read the sensational headlines and parrot them as their own 'insight' into future stories.
thwarting of malware and piracy by Google brains? by adosch · 2010-01-12 11:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Knowing Google, I'm sure they have actually thought about the repercussions of allowing all types of documents to be hosted/uploaded, or paving the way for mal/spy/shitware and alike or piracy. As much as everyone is going to look at the negatives, I"m sure Google has developed some sort of scalable trolling application to look for patterns or heuristics for that type of thing. After all, is Google not the king of the hill when it comes to data mining, pilfering, trends, habits, popularity of all of us already?
.exe by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-12 11:07 · Score: 1

Does this include executables? New Malware channels INDEED. I know a whole lot of people who wouldn't know what an extension is, besides pushing back a deadline.
Goodbye Backpack. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

Combined with Manymoon this looks like a serious contender to pricey online project management services like Backpack. Lack of artificial user limits is what makes Google strategy such an attractive proposition.
1. Re:Goodbye Backpack. by Kalriath · 2010-01-12 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  If you were using Backpack for project management, you were doing it wrong. Basecamp is designed for that.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I can see this being useful by RESPAWN · 2010-01-12 11:16 · Score: 1

I can see this being a very useful tool in the future. We currently use an internally developed tool to allow our users to upload and share large files. Unfortunately, as with anything, we've run into a few external user issues with them running an older version of Flash or their virus scanner interfering with the file download. Of course, the external user likes to blame us in these cases. What the Google brand can do for us is provide us a standard. It's a brand that people trust, and one that we can point to as a trusted standard. Now, if an external user has issues, we can say "Hey. It's Google. I don't know what you're doing wrong."
Looks like I get to start playing the testing game soon.

--
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Skydrive by nurb432 · 2010-01-12 11:25 · Score: 1

Guess that's Google's answer to things like Microsoft's Skydrive.
Wonder if it will be blocked from work too.. :(

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I already paid for my bandwidth. by sourICE · 2010-01-12 11:32 · Score: 1

We already pay for our bandwidth usage through our phone/fiber companies. Why should I have to pay somebody else money to upload a file to a friend or even thousands of friends(in this day in age of torrents)?
1. Re:I already paid for my bandwidth. by thrillseeker · 2010-01-12 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Because there's no such thing as free data storage.
2. Re:I already paid for my bandwidth. by John+Hasler · 2010-01-12 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  > Why should I have to pay somebody else money to upload a file to a friend...
  You don't. Just connect to your friend's server and upload away.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
applications by bcrowell · 2010-01-12 11:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

TFA says:

More importantly, instead of carrying a USB drive, you can now use Google Docs as a more convenient option for accessing your files on different computers.

I know very few people who use USB keychain drives for this kind of thing. I teach physics lab courses, and when students need to bring home a spreadsheets or something, they just email it to themselves. I don't think the size limit is the main reason they don't use flash drives. One reason is that they don't know in advance that they're going to need one. The other is that email is less of a hassle.
If you're getting up into the amounts of data that can't go in an email attachment, then you probably need a full-fledged file synchronization utility like unison anyway. Unison is smart about recognizing data that haven't changed, and it also takes away the hassle and confusion that people experience with trying to keep straight all the different versions of files they have when they try to use a keychain drive for this. If you don't have a decent tool like this, then mirroring large amounts of data is likely to be slow, labor-intensive, and error-prone. TFA says:

In addition to uploading any file into Google Docs, our Google Apps Premier Edition customers will be able to seamlessly upload many files at once and sync them with their desktop in real time using third party applications.

Presumably the "Premier Edition" part means you'll have to pay. So for the majority of applications where you have this much data, Google will give you convenience or zero cost, but not both.
One exception I can think of is that this could be a nice, convenient way to make off-site backups of a certain amount of personal data (that novel you've been writing, ...) in case of fire or earthquake.

--
Find free books.
1. Re:applications by Kalriath · 2010-01-12 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  In addition to uploading any file into Google Docs, our Google Apps Premier Edition customers will be able to seamlessly upload many files at once and sync them with their desktop in real time using third party applications.
  Presumably the "Premier Edition" part means you'll have to pay. So for the majority of applications where you have this much data, Google will give you convenience or zero cost, but not both.
  Premier Edition is $50 USD per user per year.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
2. Re:applications by marcosdumay · 2010-01-13 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I carry my ssh home key and some Windows software (Portable Putty, WinSCP) for accessing it on a flash driver. Synchroniztion tools only work if you know beforehand what computer you want to sichronyze with.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
Pricing info by FleaPlus · 2010-01-12 11:44 · Score: 5, Informative

It doesn't seem that anyone else commenting on the article has noticed this yet, but if you click through to the Google Docs blog it has the pricing info:
http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2010/01/upload-and-store-your-files-in-cloud.html

Instead of emailing files to yourself, which is particularly difficult with large files, you can upload to Google Docs any file up to 250 MB. You'll have 1 GB of free storage for files you don't convert into one of the Google Docs formats (i.e. Google documents, spreadsheets, and presentations), and if you need more space, you can buy additional storage for $0.25 per GB per year. This makes it easy to backup more of your key files online, from large graphics and raw photos to unedited home videos taken on your smartphone. You might even be able to replace the USB drive you reserved for those files that are too big to send over email.
Combined with shared folders, you can store, organize, and collaborate on files more easily using Google Docs. For example, if you are in a club or PTA working on large graphic files for posters or a newsletter, you can upload them to a shared folder for collaborators to view, download, and print.
Again, after the 1gb limit, that $0.25 per gb-yr. By comparison, Amazon S3 is $0.15*12=$1.80 per gb-yr, almost an order of magnitude more expensive.
1. Re:Pricing info by straponego · 2010-01-12 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Not bad. I wonder what the rates for bandwidth will be, though. If we're talking about file sharing, that would probably be the greatest cost. But if anybody's getting a good deal on bandwidth, it's Google.
2. Re:Pricing info by CopaceticOpus · 2010-01-12 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully this will embarrass online storage services such as S3 into offering more reasonable prices. I've always through they were overpriced, and this seems to confirm it.
3. Re:Pricing info by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 13:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  And you're not even taking into account the bandwidth costs associated with Amazon S3. Google Docs has no bandwidth cost (yet).
  Amazon S3 is an amazing service, but it's quite expensive on a $/GB-YEAR ratio, especially once transfer costs are added in. $0.25/GB-YEAR is quite reasonable.
4. Re:Pricing info by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  You'll have 1 GB of free storage for files you don't convert into one of the Google Docs formats
5. Re:Pricing info by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  This is the thing that is kind of annoying, i'd honestly rather see Google Drive than just have it listed under something else.
  I guess it depends how the do the interface for the external uploads.
  I remember the mess of a page in Google Page Creator. I hope they don't let it become that again.
  Non-document files should be in a separate section preferably.
Summary is troll. by bmo · 2010-01-12 11:50 · Score: 0

>newer vulnerabilities and malware distribution channels...
As if Rapidshare and the rest *aren't* copyright infringement, vulnerability, and malware distribution channels.
Unjustified smear, anyone?
>Will decimate the paid file sharing market
No, it won't. There will always be a market for paid file hosting, especially for files larger than 250MB.
Summary is troll.
Keep trollin', trollin' trollin'
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep those articles movin' Slashdot!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just sum 'em up and post 'em,
Soon the bullshit'll be high and wide.
By my heart's calculatin'
Mod points will be flyin',
Karma will be higher by and by.
Sum 'em up, post 'em up,
Mod 'em up, mod 'em down,
Move 'em on, head 'em out Slashdot!
Cut the bait, bait the hook
Reel it in, let it out,
Set the hook, reel 'em in Slashdot!
Trollin', Trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Slashdot!
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Though the quality's fallin'
Keep them articles rollin'
Slashdot!
Eds on crack and cheetos
Logic's long gone, we know!
All the things I'm missin',
Fox News and Palin,
Are waiting for me at another website.
Sum 'em up, post 'em up,
Mod 'em up, mod 'em down,
Move 'em on, head 'em out Slashdot!
Cut the bait, bait the hook
Reel 'em in, let 'em out,
Set the hook, reel 'em in Slashdot!
Trollin', Trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Slashdot!
Keep trollin', trollin' trollin'
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them articles movin'
Slashdot!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just sum 'em up and post 'em,
Soon the bullshit'll be high and wide.
By my heart's calculatin'
Mod points will be flyin',
Karma will be higher by and by.
Slashdot!
Slashdot!
Torrent plz? by jameskojiro · 2010-01-12 11:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

will now become "Gdoc plz?"

--
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
FUSE by johnkzin · 2010-01-12 12:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

How long before we see a FUSE plugin that lets you treat this like an NFS server?
(or did I miss it, and one already exists?)
intercourse the penguin! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 12:11 · Score: 0

parent post's subject reminded me of a Python bit...
And now, BBC4 will explode.
*great crashing explosing is heard*
Re:with limit of 250MB by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 12:48 · Score: 0

I remember sharing Quake 1 with my friends via ~50 1.44" floppy discs.
And let us edit them? by Deanalator · 2010-01-12 13:01 · Score: 1

It would be nice if they started building editors for various file formats, so through google docs we could collaboratively do some video editing, programming, photo editing, etc
S3 is not unreasonable by CdBee · 2010-01-12 13:05 · Score: 1

I store my most valuable 20-gb or so online in S3 via JungleDisk (a software client that provides a WebDAV local front-end to S3 and a web-hosted WebDAV and http access)

For the peace of mind, about 4 dollars a month (including upload/download charges) isnt bad. I find it worthwhile especially as my Nokia phone can directly access Jungledisk's online webdav server

I won't drop Jungledisk, but I'll use this too. Multiple redundancy can never be a bad thing except possibly in a marriage.

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Re:Strike up the Band !! The Yanks are Coming !! by cheftw · 2010-01-12 13:48 · Score: 1

So what makes this a troll?
This isn't an anything, and it's certainly not inflammatory or offensive.
Explain yourself, Mr. Mod!

--
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
SDF by The+End+Of+Days · 2010-01-12 14:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I imagine when someone makes a post about "stolen" copyrighted materials, this is what shows up on your computer:
Semantic defense squad to the rescue! We have a situation we need to derail with a meaningless argument immediately.
1. Re:SDF by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 21:41 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  No, I only get that kind of notice when people rape the English language with sarcasm. Feel free to post a meaningless semantic argument about how what you did isn't actually equivalent to rape, but I'd hate to see you molesting any other languages. We'll have to keep you away from the newer constructed languages especially. They're underage.
2. Re:SDF by The+End+Of+Days · 2010-01-15 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  At least you consistently apply the distraction technique. It won't win you many arguments against opponents with more than 2 brain cells, but I think that makes you safe on the Internet.
Guess what, so does every webhoster out there. by Hurricane78 · 2010-01-12 14:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I put it on MY server, so that I own it.
I still don’t get why anyone would be so crazy to host anything important on a company’s server. Especially one that is known as the ultimate data kraken.

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
1. Re:Guess what, so does every webhoster out there. by Kentari · 2010-01-12 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  And I don't get why anyone would trust something as important as their money to a company.
  If a Google data center burns down, there's a pretty good chance you won't even notice it. If your server burns, you will. Just like if a bank building burns down, you probably won't even notice it, but if your mattress does, you will.
  If you don't trust Google to keep their noses out of your data, encrypt it.
2. Re:Guess what, so does every webhoster out there. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  I still don’t get why anyone would be so crazy to host anything important on a company’s server.
  For pretty much the same reason most that people, say, don't do their own peering at AMS-IX or DE-CIX or RIX or whatever your nearest IXP happens to be, and instead use a company's line.
  It boils down to three things: time, money and expertise. Most people simply don't have the time to do these things (or would rather spend the time they have on other things - and no, I'm not talking about beer and football); many people also won't have the money, or at least not see why they should spend it on a server of their own, rackspace and so on, and finally, most people - normal people, not Slashdot readers - simply don't have the knowledge to pull this off.
  And there's no need to, either. Just like with, say, terrorism, we always make security decisions, and there's always a trade-off. We (Slashdot readers) don't generally take terrorism very serious as a threat, simply because even though it can happen, it's so exceedingly rare; similarly, most people don't worry about Google starting to break the law and snoop through their files, for instance, simply because it doesn't appear to be a realistic scenario.
  Of course it also depends on what you mean by "important"; for example, if I wanted to send a big file to my lawyer, I'd damn well make sure to do so in person, on a USB stick or so, and any sensible person, even a computer-illiterate one, would do the same. And of course, noone would store internal company documents etc. here, either.
  But if you want to send the photos from your latest holiday trip to your family (arguably something that IS important to people, even if it might not meet *your* definition of "important"), for example - why not? And there's a lot of gray area in between these extremes were a service such as this would still be useful.
Duplicity! by nemesisrocks · 2010-01-12 15:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm waiting for the Duplicity plugin!
Encrypted backups, for half the money Amazon S3 charges...
Re:thwarting of malware and piracy by Google brain by thogard · 2010-01-12 16:20 · Score: 1

There has long been rumors that they don't store each of your attachments but find ways to find out who else is storing them as well and then just keeping them all in one (backed-up?) place. Why would this be any different?
The limit is currently 7GB+ by symbolset · 2010-01-12 16:33 · Score: 1

Unless you want to pay, and then it's $.25 per gigabyte per year. If you get the $50 package (200 GB) or more, you get a free Eye-Fi card that uses SDIO and can wirelessly upload your pictures (if you have a supported camera) to your PC, server or an online image storage service. Currently plans go up to 1TB of storage, which is quite a lot. That's the personal version, which they did first. The commercial version will be $3.50 a GB but probably offer unlimited storage.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Wait... by symbolset · 2010-01-12 16:36 · Score: 2, Funny

They sell movies? When did that start? Next you'll be saying they say they sell music. The very idea is ridiculous. Who would pay for that?

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
File sizes by halcyon1234 · 2010-01-12 17:16 · Score: 1

250MB-- large enough for a game patch, too small for a TV show. Seems right.
Wait, can I send .exe files through gmail now?

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again
1. Re:File sizes by Ash-Fox · 2010-01-12 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  250MB-- large enough for a game patch, too small for a TV show. Seems right.
  On a website I regular:
  The Big Bang Theory - 3x12 - The Psychic Vortex (MHD) - 175 MB
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Pity uploading via browser still sucks. by AaronLawrence · 2010-01-12 20:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Why are browsers so horribly unfriendly for uploads?
Perhaps Google could put some money into fixing Firefox:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249338
or improving it
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=243468
Does Chrome have a decent upload UI? I can't recall ...

--
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
great for small businesses by kuub · 2010-01-12 21:37 · Score: 1

This will be great for small businesses, that want to host mail, webpages etc on google apps.
Before, we had to either use a separate server, mail the documents to eachother, or use some *other* online hosting service for sharing files in the organization.
Now everything is available at one place.
Looks like a major step forward.
"Every" file may not be accurate by malaprohibita · 2010-01-13 02:42 · Score: 1

For testing, I archived a bunch of old documents into one docs.7z file, 84mb in size, and tried to upload it. After 20 minutes of watching the status bar creep, I got a message saying that Google does not yet support 7z files.
1. Re:"Every" file may not be accurate by JonStewartMill · 2010-01-13 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's gone live yet. When I select 'upload a document' and click on "Allowed File Types", I see a fairly restrictive list of file types, all of which are editable document formats (e.g., PDF, ODF, DOC, XLS, CSV).
Re:thwarting of malware and piracy by Google brain by marcosdumay · 2010-01-13 03:59 · Score: 1

That's quite easy to do, so they probably do it. Might lead to some "oh, look, everybody is receving that email" funny moments.

--
Rethinking email
That's why we got Lost+Found ! by freaker_TuC · 2010-01-13 04:33 · Score: 1

It sounds so much better than "stolen" or "missing" when you found it back.
Unix has created it's own solution for it, you know, for stolen bits!
On the black market, stolen bits are much more worth. /lost+found will contain all your "misplaced items"!

--
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..