Google Drive Goes Live

lemmen writes "As widely expected, Google Drive has launched officially today. Google Drive is free for the first 5GB, while you can get an upgrade to 25GB for $2.50 a month. They say the service is available for PCs, Macs, Android devices, and soon iOS devices. According to Mercury News, '... the success of Drive will ride largely on whether Google can differentiate its offering from already established fast-growing cloud storage startups that were in the market first, such as Dropbox and Box, as well as Microsoft's SkyDrive service and big consumer media competitors like Apple's iCloud and Amazon's Cloud Drive. ... Existing Google Docs files, the centerpiece of Google's existing cloud storage offering, will move to the Google Drive service once users download apps and install the new service."

Comments

Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Access requires a proprietary client.

Where are open, standard protocols which don't require unvetted Google software to be trusted with power over our computers?

Re:Forget this garbage

[schitso]

You mean like the ones used by Dropbox, SugarSync, and Box?

Oh wait...

Re:Forget this garbage

[The MAZZTer]

Don't forget SkyDrive. Even MS, who knows Windows inside and out, install a special client and just sync files back and forth like everyone else does.

Re:Forget this garbage

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Bitch bitch bitch.

Re:Forget this garbage

[yog]

It's free, and it's Google. I would trust Google to be around for a while, to charge decent prices and provide useful tools to access the drive, and also I believe them when they say no human will see my stuff. Some other companies, such as Facebook, I don't trust nearly as much, because they seem to lack Google's commitment to be a trustworthy arbitrator of data.

Re:Forget this garbage

[WrongSizeGlass]

They all seem to include drive, box or cloud. Which one will be next? DriveBoxCloud? BoxCloudDrive? CloudDriveBox?

Re:Forget this garbage

[gstoddart]

and also I believe them when they say no human will see my stuff

I'm increasingly unsure of that. We know they scrape the contents of your emails to decide what ads to show you. We know they keep track of your browsing history as much as they can, and aggregate it across sites.

I'm just not convinced they wouldn't be peeking inside.

Then again, the only stuff I'm going to keep in the cloud is just temporary personal with no real need to have a whole lot of privacy. Anything work related, I simply won't put it into the cloud -- because for anything business confidential, I don't trust the cloud providers at all. And, more importantly, neither does my employer.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe them when they say no human will see my stuff.

I too believe them when they say that because anything of importance I store there will be encrypted on my end before uploading.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Bucky24]

and also I believe them when they say no human will see my stuff

I'm increasingly unsure of that. We know they scrape the contents of your emails to decide what ads to show you. We know they keep track of your browsing history as much as they can, and aggregate it across sites.

You do know what a scraper is, right? It's a script. An automated script. One that no human generally deals with (unless it's broken).

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

All of those are AFAICT unusable for syncing with my ARM based NAS, yes.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the trademark lawsuits begin!!!

Re:Forget this garbage

[tgd]

Don't forget SkyDrive. Even MS, who knows Windows inside and out, install a special client and just sync files back and forth like everyone else does.

If you were to use a virtual filesystem driver or a filesystem filter and stream it directly, you need admin rights to install and you have a very different security profile (because the driver would need to be able to sync from multiple Live accounts across all the profiles on the workstation).

Is it possible to do direct streaming/caching as a mounted drive/directory? Absolutely. I wrote one a few years ago that would attach a WebDAV share onto the system. That's basically how all the various app streaming products work. But its a lousy model for a light-weight consumer system.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget SkyDrive. Even MS, who knows Windows inside and out, install a special client and just sync files back and forth like everyone else does.

I still waiting on YouTwitFace.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Even MS

"Even MS", as in "even MS are using a proprietary client and a non-standardized protocol"? o_O

Re:Forget this garbage

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The problem goes deeper than that: Unless you go with encryption-on-client(ideally handled by a dedicated security processor, so that the key is never available to the potentially untrustworthy uploader-agent), which is comparatively rare because it breaks handy features like 'access from the web' and deduplication, the cloud storage provider gets to paw through your files by design.

Now, I do have to wonder why Google used a proprietary client(given their history of, for instance, OSSing their updater widget in order to calm people's fears about what it might be up to) when your data will be showing up on their servers in short order anyway, and file transfer over the internet isn't exactly an area of cutting-edge research.(Hi rysnc, how's it going?). One would think that an OSSed client would provide minimal competitive advantage to others, while helping to alleviate the 'our google overlords creep me out' response.

More generally, though, there really isn't a 'clientless'(ie. client is installed by default) option at present. The browser-based upload widgets are hacky as hell and often flake out on larger files, the java/activeX ones are incrementally more reliable but far more demanding and dodgy. FTP is horribly insecure and crotchety, SFTP causes barely a ripple outside a few geek circles. WebDAV seems to have gone nowhere for something like two decades now, some sort of NFS/SMB over VPN is ugly and wouldn't play nicely with many setups... A FUSE based FS would be nice for team linux; but arguably counts as a 'client' and doesn't help the majority of the market much...

I'd certainly trust an OSS client over a closed one; but it's hard to hold the need for a client of some kind against them at the moment.

Re:Forget this garbage

[spire3661]

so much truth here.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Reapman]

Actually that's all pretty much wrong.. it supports a lot more then Google Docs formated files - in fact even shows thumbnails apparently of a lot of standard file types when browsing. Integration seems to be it's sweet spot.

Don't need an Apps account - works fine on regular users (although it seems to be a phased rollout - it told me that my (Canadian) account will be enabled soon.

Re:Forget this garbage

[gstoddart]

You do know what a scraper is, right? It's a script. An automated script. One that no human generally deals with (unless it's broken).

As a matter of fact, I do. But oddly enough, yesterday's Dilbert cartoon is apropos.

If something is scraping it, it is available to be read by humans.

Now, if they tell us that under no circumstances will any entity ever peek into my data then I'd believe it to be secure. Well, even then, I'm not sure I'd "believe" that.

Otherwise, it's being opened and read and cataloged and indexed. I don't care if it's a scraper, or an intern at that point. You may see a magical difference between those, but I don't.

Re:Forget this garbage

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

"Cloud, cloud, drive, spam, box, spam, and drive. It hasn't got much spam in it..."

I was going for a monty python reference, but I'm sure enterprising netizens will find a way to put the other kind of spam on there, too.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Marillion]

Until someone writes an FOSS tool based upon https://developers.google.com/drive/v1/reference/ The really ambitious ones could write a FUSE layer on top of it.

Re:Forget this garbage

[rgbrenner]

You trust google not to access your files? Really? http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369188,00.asp

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming Google Drive only sends changes of files as opposed to complete files, then I'm not worried about them seeing my stuff, as I'll just store a couple TrueCrypt containers with keyfiles stored locally [1], and call it done. If they don't send file changes, I'll just create a sparse bundle drive with my Mac and store that, where a change only will affect one, possibly two of the 8MB bands.

Of course, any client running with admin permissions has the ability to log keystrokes and hook into TrueCrypt to find the master key. This doesn't say Google will ever do it, but the capability is there. However, storing a TC volume will keep out people who might get the password, or $DEITY forbid, someone get access to Google's servers and do a dump of people's directories.

[1]: I use keyfiles + a passphrase. This way, someone who copies the volume to be brute forced is not going to be able to find a guessable password, and has to deal with the full 256 bit keyspace.

Re:Forget this garbage

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Ah, thanks for the negative mod, there. Fine, I'll go into more detail: Google didn't just make a client, they're providing the storage, connection, maintenance, etc. It's also for business purposes, not a charity. Of course they want control over the client. If you're going to demand otherwise, you might as well just hold up a sign saying "I want the word Insightful to appear next to my post!"

Re:Forget this garbage

[ski9826]

ManBearPig!

Re:Forget this garbage

[hendridm]

Actually that's all pretty much wrong.. it supports a lot more then Google Docs formated files - in fact even shows thumbnails apparently of a lot of standard file types when browsing. Integration seems to be it's sweet spot.

I go to drive.google.com with my regular, non-Apps gmail login, and it says something like:
"Google Docs is currently not available." ...and there's a "Notify Me" button for when it's available. (I am in the U.S.)

Don't need an Apps account - works fine on regular users

I go to drive.google.com with my Apps account, and it says:
"Google Drive is not yet enabled for the My Company Name domain."

So I go to my Apps admin account and enable it in the "Drive and Docs" admin area, which AFAICT, is the only place in the admin menus where it's referenced. I go to the Drive section and make sure both check boxes are checked.

I go to Google Docs, and whoopedy-doooo, I can save Docs files online (which I thought I could do before)! Fun!

Re:Forget this garbage

[fahrbot-bot]

Now, if they tell us that under no circumstances will any entity ever peek into my data then I'd believe it to be secure.

Sure, right up to the day when, after a lot of people are using and depending on the service, they change the TOS to allow themselves access...

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent down. useless garbage

Re:Forget this garbage

[Richard_at_work]

Microsoft would be sued from here to the moon and back if they included this sort of sync within Windows, bound to their servers.

Oh, and also ripped to shit on here.

Re:Forget this garbage

[bkaul01]

True, though it has long been possible with SkyDrive in Windows to simply map a network drive (open a SkyDrive file in Office on your computer, then choose save-as to get the URL for the file share) and use offline files to sync. Essentially that's all the new client does, just without any manual hacking required.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that insidious rsync client as required by rsync.net!

Oh, wait...

Re:Forget this garbage

[Reapman]

Er... maybe when your in Google Docs you can.. uh only work with Google Docs?

"Naturally, Google's flexing its search muscles in as many ways as possible; if you scan in a newspaper clipping, a simple Search All within Drive will allow results to appear directly from said clipping. If you upload a shot of the Eiffel Tower, it'll show up whenever you search for the aforesaid icon. Moreover, Drive will allow folks to open over 30 types of documents directly from a web browser, including HD video, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop and more -- "even without the software installed on your computer." For those concerned about access, the new platform will have the same infrastructure as any other Google Apps services, giving admins a familiar set of management tools on that end."
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/24/google-drive-official-cloud-storage-details-docs/

I wouldn't say it's a DropBox killer or anything, Google needs to do a few changes for that to be true, but saying it only works with Docs or you require an Apps account I can't seem to find any basis for. After you enabled it in your Apps admin account, did you go back to drive.google.com or just to docs.google.com?

Re:Forget this garbage

[amRadioHed]

If something is scraping it, it is available to be read by humans.

If it's leaving your personal home network unencrypted then it's available to be read by humans. How does it make a difference that they are telling you about a script that's running on it?

Re:Forget this garbage

[DragonWriter]

Access requires a proprietary client.

No, it doesn't. Though Google, assuming most users want a desktop client rather than just an API, does provide a client.

Where are open, standard protocols which don't require unvetted Google software to be trusted with power over our computers?

The API is here. Its a dirt simple RESTful HTTP API with four operations.

Feel free to build your own client if you don't like Google's.

Re:Forget this garbage

[shadowrat]

I think the OP had a legitimate gripe. Not everyone wants to run a local executable from a company that has demonstrated a lot of interest in prying into your privacy. Granted, if you are choosing to store your files on drive, you must have some trust in them. However, what guarantee do the paranoid have that the drive client will not just be silently uploading everything you have to google. I'm not sure it's even hyperbole to suggest a point in the future where the drive client might say, "good news! you can now store everything you have on Drive! To make it easy for you, we've already uploaded all your data!"

Google could easily have provided a client built upon an open api and won a lot of favor.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Cinder6]

I trust Google to be around for a while, but not necessarily any of their services beyond Search, Gmail, Youtube, and (to a smaller extent) Docs. Google may offer a nice service, but I've been trying to reduce my dependence on them, so I'll stick with Dropbox.

Re:Forget this garbage

[hendridm]

Er... maybe when your in Google Docs you can.. uh only work with Google Docs? ... After you enabled it in your Apps admin account, did you go back to drive.google.com or just to docs.google.com?

I went to both, but drive.google.com was just the useless advertisement for it. docs.google.com was the only place that I could see where you could access it. (??)

I just went to drive.google.com again while logged in as my apps account, and it just has the ad... "Home" and "Features" are my only options.

It doesn't matter, I don't need to get it working. I was just curious to check it out.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Reapman]

fair enough... i can't access it either (assuming rollout over next few days / week i hope google?), so only going off 3rd party.

hopefully, for Google's sake, this is just growing pains on the first day..

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Now hackers just need to hack googles cloud, and gain every important document in the world from every company.
Making things easier for the hackers i think.

Re:Forget this garbage

[whereissue]

They probably wouldn't call it "Windows Update" this time, so I see your point.

Re:Forget this garbage

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Google could easily have provided a client built upon an open api and won a lot of favor.

That depends on their revenue model, doesn't it. If their client is part of that model, then no, they could not 'easily' provide what you're suggesting. Worse, if trust is a key ingredient to their revenue (and, face it, it kinda has to be just on the grounds that it is a cloud service...) then they're not going to want to provide an opportunity to have third parties developing clients that do precisely what the 'legitimate gripers' are worried about Google doing.

This isn't a legitimate gripe, it's a standard knee-jerk criticism that is routinely modded up around here. Here's an alternative comment he could have made: "I don't trust any entity to hold my data. Is there an open standard server + client combo I can put on my co-located webserver that does basically the same job?" See the difference? I mean, seriously, boo hoo, the company that is providing the service wants it done their own way. Waaah.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Fwipp]

There's a nice RESTful SDK that looks pretty promising. Nothing stopping you from using it to make whatever front-end client you want. In fact, I'd bet that the official Google client is using it.

Re:Forget this garbage

[DamonHD]

...which simply wouldn't be legal under EU Data Protection rules. Bait-and-switch doesn't trump privacy.

Unless you're called Facebook I suppose, but didn't Facebook just have to sign a 20 year agreement with the US FTC promising NOT to do things like that again?

Rgds

Damon

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

If something is scraping it, it is available to be read by humans.

The admin on the mail server (and all the mail servers in between delivery and receipt?) you use can read your mail too, unless the contents are encrypted.

Does the tinfoil hat chafe much?

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the OP had a legitimate gripe. Not everyone wants to run a local executable from a company that has demonstrated a lot of interest in prying into your privacy. Granted, if you are choosing to store your files on drive, you must have some trust in them. However, what guarantee do the paranoid have that the drive client will not just be silently uploading everything you have to google. I'm not sure it's even hyperbole to suggest a point in the future where the drive client might say, "good news! you can now store everything you have on Drive! To make it easy for you, we've already uploaded all your data!" Google could easily have provided a client built upon an open api and won a lot of favor.

This is an interesting twist on thing

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Box supports WebDAV. I use it all of the time.

Re:Forget this garbage

[AmiMoJo]

Actually they hiked the prices massively. I was paying $5/year for 20GB on my Picasa/Docs accounts, but now it has rocketed to $30/year. The only good news is that people like me who are already paying can apparently keep paying the $5/year rate, unless we want to change the amount of storage or forget to update our credit card info before the automatic repeat billing kicks in.

Re:Forget this garbage

[AmiMoJo]

Now, I do have to wonder why Google used a proprietary client(given their history of, for instance, OSSing their updater widget in order to calm people's fears about what it might be up to) when your data will be showing up on their servers in short order anyway, and file transfer over the internet isn't exactly an area of cutting-edge research.(Hi rysnc, how's it going?). One would think that an OSSed client would provide minimal competitive advantage to others, while helping to alleviate the 'our google overlords creep me out' response.

It is most likely down to bandwidth control and preventing people from developing unofficial and undesirable file sharing apps running on their platform.

A custom client can have some advanced bandwidth control built in that prevents Google's server from getting hammered. You can get the background sync rate slows to a crawl at peak times, and the client probably checks hashes with the server to de-duplicate without even needing to upload the file first.

In the past any kind of easily shareable storage was turned in to a file sharing hub almost instantly. Yahoo Groups file area, every random cyberlocker site ever, people even used to share Gmail/Docs account details just to upload files.

Plus a custom client is nice for most users who just want something that works automatically, and handles stuff like resuming uploads and sending diffs.

There are reasons why no-one offers free FTP/NFS accounts.

Re:Forget this garbage

[badpazzword]

That's precisely what they're planning to do.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/02/20/connecting-your-apps_2c00_-files_2c00_-pcs-and-devices-to-the-cloud-with-skydrive-and-windows-8.aspx

Re:Forget this garbage

[Z8]

You could use a client-side program with encryption that's designed to work with untrusted servers. A simple OSS example is duplicity; it supports backends like WebDAV and Amazon S3.

Re:Forget this garbage

[AmiMoJo]

To be fair to Google they do at least keep all the really juicy stuff to themselves if you ask. Unlike Facebook they won't tell advertisers what they think your sexual orientation is, for example, and you can turn off personalized ads completely. They still log the data, but in the spectrum of free web services built on ads Google is at the more benevolent end.

That's the price of using Google services, and for the moment I am just about okay paying it. Naturally I wouldn't trust them with anything too sensitive and use AdBlock.

Re:Forget this garbage

[AngryDeuce]

Not everyone wants to run a local executable from a company that has demonstrated a lot of interest in prying into your privacy

Not everyone is planning on using it for shit that actually matters. For me, it's nothing but a virtual flash drive to share media without carrying a physical one around (and probably lose/forget somewhere). 5 GBs is more than enough to share photos, music, and video clips.

I totally get the privacy concerns people have, but let's not pretend that every fucking piece of data people generate has some use to Google. If they want to scrape my cookie recipes looking for something to monetize, I couldn't give less of a shit.

I guess it's just not the sort of thing I can understand being worked up over. If someone is worried Google might look at their shit, they shouldn't upload their shit to Google Drive. If they don't want it on their computer, they don't have to install it. There are plenty of paid options out there that treat your cloud storage like a bank vault. Go with one of them.

Re:Forget this garbage

[AngryDeuce]

Naturally I wouldn't trust them with anything too sensitive and use AdBlock.

Holy shit, someone sensible, I just may have a heart attack.

It's a free, voluntary service for fuck's sake. Nobody is being forced to use it, and certainly nobody is being forced to use it for sensitive content. I plan on using mine to share media with friends and family so I don't need to carry a physical flash drive around. If Google wants to rip off the MP3's I already ripped off on The Pirate Bay, c'est la vie.

AdBlock and NoScript take care of everything else I'm concerned about. The sky isn't falling.

Re:Forget this garbage

[AngryDeuce]

Now, if they tell us that under no circumstances will any entity ever peek into my data then I'd believe it to be secure. Well, even then, I'm not sure I'd "believe" that.

So don't put anything sensitive on there. I mean, Jesus, why is this such a big deal? It's Google. They scrape data to serve ads. We all know that. Nothing new here. So why are we having the same fucking arguments again and again and again as concerns privacy and Google?

If you don't want anyone to know something, you don't tell anyone. If you don't want someone to possibly get access to your data one day, then don't put your fucking data in a place where that could possibly happen, like ever. Your soopersecretfiles don't belong on a cloud storage site, obviously. They don't even belong on a computer with an internet connection at all, if they're that sensitive.

Good God, the lack of common sense, it's mind-boggling.

Re:Forget this garbage

[DragonWriter]

I think the OP had a legitimate gripe. Not everyone wants to run a local executable from a company that has demonstrated a lot of interest in prying into your privacy.

Then, well, don't. You can use Drive without using the desktop client app, though you lose some of the new functionality Drive has over the old Google Docs cloud storage (which it replaces.)

Google could easily have provided a client built upon an open api and won a lot of favor.

Drive has a published API. I don't see any evidence that anyone has demonstrated that the Google Drive desktop app doesn't use it. So, I'm not at all convinced that the knee jerk reactions wouldn't be the same no matter what they did.

Re:Forget this garbage

[shutdown -p now]

SkyDrive is actually WebDAV, it's just not really advertized as such. But you can see it when you enable SkyDrive integration in MS Office and look at the file paths in file open/save dialogs.

Anyway, if you want a cloud disk service with open, documented protocol and the ability to mount it as a regular disk drive in pretty much any OS, that would be Jungle Disk (they even have a FUSE provider!).

Re:Forget this garbage

[hey]

Yes that would be nice, then you can make a script that backs up your stuff with ftp, rsync etc.

Re:Forget this garbage

[whoop]

It's not rolled out for everyone, apps domains included. I'm in the same boat, waiting.

Re:Forget this garbage

[squiggleslash]

Summary of article: Employee breaks Google's rules about confidentiality, is fired.

I'm sorry, but how does that article do anything other than encourage trust in Google?

Re:Forget this garbage

[sowth]

rsync.net seems to use standard protocols--in their FAQ it says "SSH and HTTPS (webDAVs)" (I've been thinking about using them for a while, just haven't made the plunge.)

Re:Forget this garbage

[rgbrenner]

Yes, you're right.. I shouldn't be concerned that employees can freely access the data.. and when it hits the media, then google will fire the person.

Why do they have such easy access to everyones data?

Re:Forget this garbage

[CAIMLAS]

Wait, so it's not a paid-for WebDAV account with a specialized (and well-done) client implementation?

Consider me uninterested.

Re:Forget this garbage

[camh]

Because HTTP is proprietary? Google Drive has a HTTP API for storage, updating and retrieval: https://developers.google.com/drive/v1/reference/
I think the garbage to forget is your uninformed post.

Re:Forget this garbage

[toolo]

http://www.groovypost.com/howto/microsoft/windows-7-map-drive-skydrive-using-url-address-network/

Map as a drive. No client needed. Done.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Cito]

Yea this isn't working for me either.

I've had a gmail account since about the 3rd week of beta (got lucky) and I have google webmaster/adsense/and other accounts. I'm in the USA, South east to be little more specific, But there is only a notify button and says it's not available yet.

states it will email me when google drive is available.

so yea... no worky for me... course it could be a south east redneck conspiracy, they don't want me posting pics of my sister (har har)

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

While those would be nice, the real problem is the price.

At 25 cents per gigabyte per year, they were a steal. They could have cornered the entire market. At 60 cents per gigabyte per year (and other solutions are as much as double that or more!), I'll just take my shit back off the cloud and find another solution.

Re:Forget this garbage

[cerberusss]

I'd go for shit. Where did I leave my shit? Oh fuck, I left it in the cloud. ShitCloud (TM).

Or dump. I'ma dumpin' my shit in the cloud.

Re:Forget this garbage

[jamiesan]

Bloody Vikings.... they are obviously hackers with all those large bladed weapons.

Re:Forget this garbage

[godefroi]

Absolutely agree re: Jungle Disk, except that since the Rackspace acquisition, there's been very little activity, and even less communication from them. My guess is that everyone that mattered over there took their newfound riches and left.

There's a thread over at the JD support forums that's been active for months (since last November) titled "No updates in 7 months... is JD alive??". There have been no responses from JD yet. Does not inspire confidence.

Re:Forget this garbage

[lipanitech]

Biggest problem with cloud is security date sent there should be encrypted. These sky drives are like the holy glare for some hackers. Dropbox its amazing what people put up there and even Google docs I found so many confidential docs by accident. http://lipanitechnologies.com/blog/google-docs-info/

Re:Forget this garbage

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Come on. So they want you to have their client so they can troubleshoot and have a known, uniform access path to their service. Have you ever provided a service of any size at all? Come on. I would have done exactly the same thing.

Re:Forget this garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

ShitCloud (TM).

Or Shit(Storm)Cloud?

Re:Forget this garbage

[whoop]

Good news for me. They opened it up for a couple of my accounts, one with paid storage, and one free on Wednesday. So the rollout is progressing quicker than I expected.

Re:Forget this garbage

[squiggleslash]

When you get a job and you work in the real world, you'll find that virtually all companies that store large amounts of data have numerous people who have access to all of that data. Unfortunately it's virtually impossible not to have that situation. You'll find that's as true of, say, hospitals and health insurers as it is of car dealerships and sewing supplies stores.

Can this be changed? Not easily. Virtually every third party tool that you use makes it difficult to hide data not specifically required for someone's immediate task at hand, not intentionally, but because it's close to impossible to create universal tools that can do that without burying their usefulness in complexity and bureaucracy.

If you think individual Google engineers don't have access, you're naive. If you think there's anything Google can do about that situation except create heavy penalties for offenders, then you're not living in the real world. If you think the vast majority of Google engineers are going to risk their careers and even potential prison time simply to get hold of your sexual preferences so they can make fun of you on Facebook, well, then you're extremely and unrealistically paranoid.

Good backup for important files

[cpu6502]

My resume, my tax returns, purchased books..... just in case the house burns down & eats my USB backup drive.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Anonymous Coward]

My resume, my tax returns, purchased books..... just in case the house burns down & eats my USB backup drive.

Safer to just buy a fire safe and hide it deep in a closet. Just a liiiiittle bit harder to hack than cloud storage.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to encrypt all this before sending it to "the cloud"

Re:Good backup for important files

[thetoadwarrior]

Which is why I rather back it up on something more secure like rsync.net and not give it to someone who wants to scan all my data in order to help themselves target me better with advertising.

Re:Good backup for important files

[denis-The-menace]

or http://iosafe.com/

It's BBQ approved!
http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/370119/iosafe_solopro_christmas_bbq/

Re:Good backup for important files

[A nonymous Coward]

Make sure that safe is fire safe for electronics. Most fire safes brag about keeping the interior to 350F or so for a few hours. Solder flows just above that, so electronics aren't good in them. But some safes are better; you just have to be careful.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Anonymous Coward]

Any asshole with an angle grinder can get into your fire safe. Google's data center is more of a known quantity.

Use secure encryption if it makes you feel better. Personally, I securely encrypted my old tax documents, and then forgot the key when I actually needed them. That was a fun lesson. Now I don't bother -- who really gives a fuck about my tax documents?

Re:Good backup for important files

[gid]

Looking at many different safes, none of them seem to flat out say electronics are safe to store. Although many show pictures of usb drives and what not in them. I've been thinking about getting a fireproof safe for awhile to store a hard drive or two and some important documents as well. Is there anything you recommend?

Someone also mentioned iosafe, which sounds good, but doesn't store physical documents of course, so that would definitely be more expensive, as I already have a couple hard drives that I use for backup purposes and then I'd still want to get a fireproof safe for the hard documents.

Re:Good backup for important files

[mcgrew]

TFS: They say the service is available for PCs, Macs, Android devices, and soon iOS devices.

I hope by "PCs" they're including Linux; Macs are personal computers, after all.

That said, 5 gb isn't much these days. I'd far rather have an offsite backup somewhere better, like in a friend's house.

Re:Good backup for important files

[gid]

Yeah, but a hacker in Russia isn't going to drive all the way house in Ohio just to steal a couple ssn's and couple hundered gigs worth of family photos and movies. Not mention storing all my data in the cloud would be quite expensive.

Re:Good backup for important files

[A nonymous Coward]

I have a Hall's safe (before they ughed out their web page with animation and moved the company) but they were local. The main thing is to look for the temperature rating of the inside, not the fire. I haven't looked for one in a while and have no other recommendation.

Re:Good backup for important files

[swillden]

Don't forget to encrypt all this before sending it to "the cloud"

There is a cost to doing that: Google Drive's search features won't work for you. I have thousands of files in mine (I work for Google and have been using it for a few months, with a very generous storage limit, so I've got lots in there), and although you can organize things in hierarchical directories, the search features are the way I find the stuff I want 99% of the time. What makes it really nice is that it indexes everything -- it can parse virtually any file format, and even uses the Google Goggles technology to extract textual descriptions of objects in images, and I think it also does OCR on images as well.

Of course, if you're more worried about Google extracting information from your files than about your ability to find them, then this aggressive search indexing is stronger motivation to encrypt. If you just want to be able to find your stuff easily, from anywhere, it rocks, and encrypting will break it.

Re:Good backup for important files

[mattack2]

Gee, sounds a lot like Spotlight.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, to support search, Google is going to scan all of that. Even images, for text recognition. Leave your personal information out of the cloud and do some off-site backup of your own.

Re:Good backup for important files

[C0C0C0]

Don't forget to encrypt all this before sending it to "the cloud"

That would disable the cool search features.

Re:Good backup for important files

[LateArthurDent]

There is a cost to doing that: Google Drive's search features won't work for you...and although you can organize things in hierarchical directories, the search features are the way I find the stuff I want 99% of the time.

I've been seeing both Windows and Mac moving in the direction of trying to abstract me from the location where files are saved in favor of searching for them. I've never understood that use model. I don't mind that other people would find their files that way, but I've never had to search for a file in my life. I just save them in logical places and they're always where I expect them to be. It's most certainly not what I want to do 99% of the time.

It must be a result of working with a computer back when indexing every single file in your box would have been an insane waste of storage space, the indexing process would have taken an insane amount of time during which my computer would have been unusable because I'd only have a single core, and the search through the index would still be slow enough that it'd be faster to navigate to the file. In those days, we wore an onion in our belts, because that was the style at the time...

Re:Good backup for important files

[swillden]

I suspect I started using computers about as early as you did (first experience was in the late 70s, got my first computer in the early 80s, first IBM PC was in 86, first computer I bought myself was in 91, etc.) and I've always felt the same way about organization, but on both my Mac and with Google Drive I find that searching is just faster than navigating, even if I know exactly where my file is.

A characteristic of Docs/Drive that perhaps contributes in that context is that when people share stuff with me, it goes in the "Shared with Me" folder, and I rarely bother to move it to other locations. The reason I don't bother is because so much stuff is always showing up in there that categorizing all of it would be a pain. So it's easier just to search, and that got me in the habit of searching even for documents I originated.

Re:Good backup for important files

[swillden]

It is a lot like Spotlight, except that Spotlight doesn't search images by content.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, but no thanks Google

From Google Drive EULA

"When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2972228/cloud-storage-terms-of-service-comparison-avoid-google-drive

Re:Good backup for important files

[icebraining]

Why do you need to read the EULA? Those permissions are implied by the features. How are they supposed to let you sync without hosting, storing and distribute? How are they supposed to let you search the content of images without creating that derivative work (the textual representation)? Magic?

Re:Good backup for important files

[LateArthurDent]

I suspect I started using computers about as early as you did (first experience was in the late 70s, got my first computer in the early 80s, first IBM PC was in 86, first computer I bought myself was in 91, etc.) and I've always felt the same way about organization, but on both my Mac and with Google Drive I find that searching is just faster than navigating, even if I know exactly where my file is.

That's fair enough, and like I said, I don't have a problem with people who want to do that. In fact, since Google Drive is actually still allowing me to set the hierarchy, I think Google is handling it right. I just have this fear that one day operating systems will be like phone operating systems. They'll stop telling me where my stuff is, and no longer allow me to exert any control over it.

For one single file, I will even agree that searching is faster than navigating. However, typically when I navigate to the directory where I keep a file, I have several related files right there, that I will soon be working with as well. Now I don't need to also search for them, because the folder is open on the right spot.

Basically, I didn't mean to be critical of your workflow, I just wanted to point out that there are people like me who don't use the search features as the default method of getting to our data. Literally the only times I will ever search for a file is if it wasn't placed there by me. For example, when it was placed by the installer of an application.

Re:Good backup for important files

[aaarrrgggh]

Searching is useful when there are matrix associations with where something could be or what it relates to. This becomes especially challenging in working with multiple people.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Anonymous Coward]

How would Google target specifically target adds to me if I do that?
Being a gay, fat, black, white supremacist, lesbian - good advertising is hard to come by.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, only for important files.

I only encrypt things that are highly sensitive: My KeePass database, some of my own documents that I want nobody to know (yet). Other than that, I just upload everything plainly to the Cloud. I don't care about the risk of personal information leaking from Google and other big name companies (and presumingly reputable ones like Dropbox), because I think that risk is pretty low - because I think even a tiny symptom of that shows up, the media will roar, and the lawyers will load their machine gun and shoot the Cloud Provider like Schwarzenegger.

Another reason I don't care about personal information leaking from the Cloud is: EVEN it leaks, I don't worry much. I'm Mr. Nobody. I have nothing CIA/FBI/Wikileaks even bothers to care. And my personal particulars have already been shared by the Banks and Insurance Companies thousand times. So what am I afraid to lose in the Cloud? It's even hard to find anybody out there who gives a shit about any of my documents I upload to Dropbox, other than my relatives / friends. Phone number leaked to the public? I don't know anyone else but Banks and Insurance Companies would call me, and they already have it reliabily. Email exposed to Spammers? It's up to the Email Provider like Gmail to ensure the effectiveness of its filtering system.

There is always a trade off between Convinience and Security, and I just opt for convinience unless the martrial of concern is really sensitve.

Back to the sensitive files, why do I upload them to the Cloud? Simple, it's for Data Safety - the probablility to lose the data forever is much lower in the cloud than on my computer, and I ensure Data Security only through a strong password in this case.

How about company's sensitive / confidential files? Very simple, I never upload them to the Cloud - Data Security is the company's IT team's responsibility.

On the other hand, when I do encrypt the files, I use the most important and secure password of mine that I never use anywhere else online.

Re:Good backup for important files

[swillden]

Literally the only times I will ever search for a file is if it wasn't placed there by me. For example, when it was placed by the installer of an application.

In the case of Google Drive, a file being shared with you by someone else is somewhat analogous to that. Of course, it's always in a known location, but if you get a dozen files a day that list quickly becomes very long unless you actively manage it.

Just for completeness, I should mention there's another approach I use even more often than either search or hierarchical navigation -- Drive has a "Recent" pseudo-folder which contains everything sorted by last access date, most recent first. It's typically the case that what I'm looking for is in the top dozen or so entries there, so my normal process is to glance there first and if it doesn't jump out at me, search. The search does an "instant" sort of thing, automatically offering best guesses after a few characters, so I rarely have to type more than three or four letters to find what I'm looking for. This is all much faster than clicking through two or three levels of folders.

Oh, that's when I access it through the web interface. For files synced to my local drive, I use either Spotlight or folder navigation. For my Linux boxen, Drive doesn't (yet) have a sync client, so my workflow is like yours. Usually I know where stuff is, but if I don't there's "locate" or (more often, actually) "dpkg -S".

Re:Good backup for important files

[swillden]

Thanks, but no thanks Google

From Google Drive EULA

"When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2972228/cloud-storage-terms-of-service-comparison-avoid-google-drive

Hmm, yeah, this is a case where the single-policy approach doesn't work so well. What makes sense for services like Google+ doesn't make as much sense for Drive.

Interestingly, if you have a Google Apps domain, rather than using a gmail.com account or similar, the rules are very different. In that agreement there is no licensing clause. The most relevant section there is:

7.1 Intellectual Property Rights. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement does not grant either party any rights, implied or otherwise, to the other's content or any of the other's intellectual property. As between the parties, Customer owns all Intellectual Property Rights in Customer Data, and Google owns all Intellectual Property Rights in the Services.

So, if you don't like the normal terms of service, register your own domain name and set up a Google Apps account. Then you're operating under the terms Google uses with its enterprise clients.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Coren22]

Look for media safes, they are designed for keeping LTO tapes below melt temperature, which is much lower temp than solder will melt.

Re:Good backup for important files

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem is, for example the windows start menu Vista onwards.

I would find it more convenient to get to what I wanted in the XP Start menu, as the popups were accesible via Mouse. - They would fly out etc.

Since Vista, they no longer fly-out, and the menu is a scrolling one. So much less useful I am *forced* to use the search box. So I go from using a mouse to initiate all actions, to a combination of mouse+keyboard.

It is more convenient to search now, but only because they made the non-search method less convenient.

Obligatory link

[Anonymous Coward]

https://drive.google.com/start#home

Re:Obligatory link

[Joce640k]

Yes, I found that.

What I couldn't find was a 'download' link. Anyone...?

Re:Obligatory link

[vlm]

Well the android app is "formerly known as google docs" so I already have it installed.

Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Richard_at_work]

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

No right-click menu in the desktop client, so no grabbing public links etc.

No ability to name the Google Drive folder, only choose its location (the same as dropbox, but a lot of people were hoping for "pick any folder anywhere").

Speed is a bit faster.

Storage prices a lot cheaper ($9.99/month for 200GB vs $9.99 for 50GB on Dropbox).

There is offline access to Google Docs stuff, not tried that yet.

The Windows client is very very very similar to an old Dropbox version - even down to "Selective Sync" within the Google Drive folder.

Android and iOS apps - no Blackberry app yet.

All in all, I haven't come to a conclusion yet - better in some aspects, worse in others. I think a lot of people were expecting a lot more from Google Drive than this offering.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[GameboyRMH]

I was only hoping for SFTP access, from there I'd put a big TrueCrypt container on the drive and not worry about the other problems.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[yog]

Perhaps when viewed in isolation, Drive is not that much better than DropBox, but when you add in other Google services such as music.google.com, Google wins. I have 60 gigs of music stored on music.google.com, at zero cost, and I think I can upload about 9,000 more files before I hit the free limit.

Google Picasa allows unlimited storage for images of up to 2048 x 2048 pixels and videos up to 15 minutes. I've only put a few things on Picasa as yet, but I suspect that almost all of my 254 gigs of images and video clips will qualify as free storage at Picasa.

And, of course, as you point out, Google Docs files don't count toward storage, so if you allow them to convert your Word/OO/Libre files over to Docs format, you're all set.

I suspect that for a lot of people, the free 5 gigs in combination with Google's Music and Picasa services will just about cover everything.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[DdJ]

There is offline access to Google Docs stuff, not tried that yet.

No, there isn't. Not really. They make it look like there is, but there isn't.

What syncs down for these files is just a wrapper containing a URL and some metadata. Double-click on one and you're in the web interface, editing the file online.

Want to prove it to yourself? Then use command-line tools ("cat" on MacOS or "type" on Windows) to dump the contents of the file.

I'm very disappointed.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[TubeSteak]

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

So I can share my 10GB truecrypt file without it counting against any storage limit?

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Picasa allows unlimited storage for images of up to 2048 x 2048 pixels

Say what now? How do you get that (for free)? My Picasa account still says I'm limited to 1GB storage.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Qwavel]

GDrive has an issue with complexity here - they have to map their existing Google Docs service to Windows & Mac file-systems. Dropbox doesn't have that problem so their service is likely to always be easier to use and understand.

Google is generally great at engineering but pretty bad at making things simple, consistent, and understandable, and this is no exception.

For example, about a year ago Google renamed the organizational labels of Google Docs to collections. I was surprised that they would do this without bringing it into line with any of the other Google services, but I figured they must have given it a lot of thought and decided that 'collections' were the best concept for docs.

Today they renamed it again - to 'folders'. Once again, unlike other Google services, and hard to understand because they are not like folders at all.

Trying out GDrive today I find it is full of confusing, inconsistent, and half-working stuff.

Frankly, I'm really disappointed. Google seemed to take their time bringing this to market and I had hoped that meant that they wanted to get it right before releasing it, like Google+ which I think is one of their best efforts. But my initial impression is that it is half-baked.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[metrometro]

> I think a lot of people were expecting a lot more from Google Drive than this offering.

The reason DropBox won over the existing services (there were many) was simplicity. It's a folder that syncs. That's all people want. More features, more complexity: Microsoft has tried it. Dropbox ate their lunch.

Google is offering a folder that syncs, at a lower price on an ID management platform many people already use. Seems likely to work.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Dahamma]

If you have Google+ there is no limit to images and short videos stored. Not sure if you have to upload them via Google+ though?

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Colonel Korn]

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

No right-click menu in the desktop client, so no grabbing public links etc.

I installed SkyDrive yesterday because of the recent update and the recent free 25 GB upgrade, but it also lacks the right click functionality in the desktop client so I'm on the verge of just going back to Dropbox. Based on what people such as yourself are saying about Google Drive, it looks like it's even slightly worse than SkyDrive. I wonder whether Google and MS are avoiding the right click public link feature because of a Dropbox patent or whether neither company believes it's useful.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

To answer my own question: I googled it and found that the unlimited storage is for Google+.
But I'm an Anonymous Hero, so it doesn't apply...

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Files shared with you by someone else don't count against your limit. Those file count against the 'someone else's limit.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[iluvcapra]

1) Create sockpuppet 2nd google account.

2) ???

3) Profit!

They probably mean files you're invited to, not files you're hosting on your account; this is different from Dropbox, where if someone uploads a file and shares it with 10 people, everyone who accepts the invitation gets that file counted against their quota until they unshare.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think it requires google+ (though at this point, everyone has an account anyway). i use picasa's desktop client and the web client and i get unlimited storage. while i *see* my limit (i purchased more than 1gb), its that anything under a certain size does not count toward that limit.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have anything to check this against, but are you sure that file isn't just a wrapper for an html5 manifest file that takes care of the offline stuff?

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Tubal-Cain]

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

Strangely enough, revisions and Trash files still count against my physical drive's capacity, too.
It's not like they magically stop taking up space the instant they're no longer the "current" version, so I can't fault a service for continuing to count it against you.

No right-click menu in the desktop client...

Odd. There's a context menu in the web app.

No ability to name the Google Drive folder, only choose its location (the same as dropbox, but a lot of people were hoping for "pick any folder anywhere").

Meh. Shortcuts and ls should fill the gap.

Android and iOS apps - no Blackberry app yet.

Or Linux.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[PCM2]

The reason DropBox won over the existing services (there were many) was simplicity. It's a folder that syncs. That's all people want. More features, more complexity: Microsoft has tried it. Dropbox ate their lunch.

For a while, maybe. Microsoft just announced new upgrades to SkyDrive where it essentially works just like Dropbox, with more storage for free accounts.

FWIW, though, many people who preferred Live Mesh to Dropbox did so because Live Mesh allowed you to sync arbitrary folders, rather than just one big folder. That was good for (lame) programs that require files to be in certain locations.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[flimflammer]

No ability to name the Google Drive folder, only choose its location (the same as dropbox, but a lot of people were hoping for "pick any folder anywhere").

That's incorrect. If you specify advanced setup, it lets you pick exactly where and what the folder is named (Mine is just named "GDrive").

I'm personally disappointed by their sharing scheme, that you need to perform so many steps to get a link to share, and there's absolutely no means to generate a link without going through all the steps on the webpage itself.

A bit rough around the edges. For some reason, it won't sync new .txt files that are created inside. It will just say the files on unsyncable even if nothing has been put into the text documents yet, and even if data is stored in said documents. It's new, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. But I definitely would stick to dropbox for ease of use, unless I want to share entire directories, then Google Drive is the superior store.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Mike]

I have 60 gigs of music stored on music.google.com, at zero cost

Yeah, but once you upload it, you cannot re-download it, right? So it's not the same functionality...

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

So I can share my 10GB truecrypt file without it counting against any storage limit?

You got this wrong, if YOU share the content, unless is a Google Doc file it does count towards your storage space, if you add someone else's shared file, it does not count towards your storage space (since it's a symlink).

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[swillden]

Open it while you're offline, and you can see the full document content is there.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[DdJ]

I did. It's not.

(Unless you're using Google Chrome and have offline access to Google Docs set up, and had connected to it before syncing the file you want to look at, that is. Because in that case, it was already syncing down without the Google Docs sync client. But only read-only, not for editing.)

So: you try it, with your default browser set to anything other than Chrome. Or: quit Chrome, go to another computer, create a new Google Docs file, let the sync client pull it over, kill your internet connection, and then double-click on the synced file.

Go ahead, try it. If your results differ from mine, we can try to figure out why.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't the case at launch, but you can now.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[mydn]

Today they renamed it again - to 'folders

They renamed Docs collections to folders? Where do you see this? I just went into the web interface and it still says "My collections".

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[swillden]

Oh, yes, you have to have Chrome set up with the offline app. I haven't tried it with anything else. What would you expect it to do? I didn't think offline Docs worked with anything but Chrome, as of yet.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[DerekLyons]

Google Picasa allows unlimited storage for images of up to 2048 x 2048 pixels

Which, to a photographer, is like having unlimited storage of 5 second audio files would be to a music collector - all but useless. And to get that unlimited storage, you have to upload them via Google+, otherwise it's a 1gig limit.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[icebraining]

Install encfs and create a mountpoint with the encrypted directory inside the Dropbox or GDrive directory. Then you can use the mounted directory as normal, and everything gets encrypted before it's uploaded.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't happen, unless they find a way to get something valuable from your encrypted data.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Mike]

Hmm, it does appear now that I can download one song at a time, but I don't see any way to download a whole album, or the whole collection. For it to be useful to me, I need to be able to do this.

If I lose my entire collection of music at home, I would like to be able to download it again...

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[DragonWriter]

Google is offering a folder that syncs, at a lower price on an ID management platform many people already use. Seems likely to work.

More than that, its an enhancement to an existing cloud storage system that many people already use: "Google Drive" is just a rollout of new features and tools for Google Docs.

And, really, the Dropbox-like desktop app (while its what is getting lots of attention, perhaps because people have been looking for a "Google Drive" -- and hacking together their own since Google's only public cloud storage was GMail! -- for quite some time) isn't the only big feature of Drive. The perhaps bigger feature, I think, is the SDK and integration of third-party web apps into the open/create functions on the Drive (formerly Docs) web interface on an equal footing to the Docs editors, which basically turns the Drive web UI into a "desktop" for web apps, where the Chrome Web Store is the app market.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[Richard_at_work]

I specified advanced setup, and I ended up with "Google Drive" inside of a folder I named "GoogleDrive" :(

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox

[wshyang]

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

No right-click menu in the desktop client, so no grabbing public links etc.

No ability to name the Google Drive folder, only choose its location (the same as dropbox, but a lot of people were hoping for "pick any folder anywhere").

Speed is a bit faster.

Storage prices a lot cheaper ($9.99/month for 200GB vs $9.99 for 50GB on Dropbox).

There is offline access to Google Docs stuff, not tried that yet.

The Windows client is very very very similar to an old Dropbox version - even down to "Selective Sync" within the Google Drive folder.

Android and iOS apps - no Blackberry app yet.

All in all, I haven't come to a conclusion yet - better in some aspects, worse in others. I think a lot of people were expecting a lot more from Google Drive than this offering.

I actually got a chance to start using it today and I'm kind of disappointed. A few things that bug me:

1) Not using binary diffs when syncing. During the big initial upload/download, I found that when I've moved a folder when it is still downloading on a different machine, the remote machine would actually (!) move those files that were moved into the trash can and retransfer those files again.

Really??! Any first year CS student worth his salt can probably do a bit better! And I thought Google is teeming with PhDs and this Google Drive product has been in the works for years.

2) The status indicator icons don't work correctly on Windows. A small pet peeve, but in comparison to Dropbox it does seems rather awkward.

3) Only ONE BIG queue instead of a separate queue for incoming and outgoing changes that Dropbox has. This actually makes a huge difference when you are working on a system that is currently syncing in a lot of changes that were made remotely. Your modifications actually won't be reflected until the big incoming queue has cleared.

I am sure there is more to come, but from big G I am really surprised how poor things are at the start. Generally mediocre implementation, low storage quotas (in comparison to Skydrive and Dropbox which gives the opportunity for referral bonuses as well as various rewards for participating in betas) and relative lack of polish in desktop client... the only thing going for Google Drive is the Google name.

What Gas Mileage Does It Get?

[billstewart]

This is about Google's self-driving cars, isn't it?

No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's all give Google more daa about ourselves to mine for their advertiser customers. Wooo... Hoo?

Remember, you are the product not the customer.

Re:No thanks.

[dyingtolive]

I will still be able to sleep at night knowing that evil Google has my collection of Warhammer 40k army lists and Dungeons and Dragons character backstories.

If we all do this, maybe then Games Workshop will realize that there's more to 40k than Space Marines and Hasbro will finally get the hint that we all hated 4th edition and think Drizzt can suck the business end of a crossbow.

Just to clarify: I like my privacy, but I understand when my privacy stops being just that; Anything I do not wish to become public I do not make as such.

Re:No thanks.

[cpu6502]

>>>Wooo... Hoo?

Hello Lennier. Enjoy being a minbari ranger?

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are still plenty of 'us' around. How dare anyone have a differing opinion of Google beyond gushing fanboism! Burn them!

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pervert

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are all your documents publicly available? Does your PC not have a login password? Do you let the entire world read your mail and read your diary?

Re:No thanks.

[dyingtolive]

Why does it have to be extremes one way or another? Surely there is some grey area?

Re:No thanks.

[DamonHD]

Teenage thinking admits not grey: with us or against us, just like me or flat-out wrong, left or right, ...

Rgds

Damon

Backblaze

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I just bought a backblaze subscription. Although, I assume BB is still cheaper for the 1TB of data I'm backing up currently... unlimited for less than $4/mo.

Free five gigs will be nice for backing up my webserver though.

Re:Backblaze

[Electricity Likes Me]

And suddenly I'm aware of BackBlaze.

Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[Simulant]

Yet again.

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Google doesn't give a shit about people who actually pay for the services. It will come out, eventually. Personally I don't trust Googlers any further than I can throw them.

--
Looking for a software engineer position in Atlanta. Sundar Pichai's incompetence resulted in me losing my job.

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[robmv]

Wrong, I have it and it works (at least the Android client and web interface, I don't use Windows or Mac), enable doc in the control panel or request it to the domain admin, it is the same Google Docs permission

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[Sinister Stairs]

Check your Google Apps release track:

http://whatsnew.googleapps.com/release-tracks

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[cojsl]

Wrong, I have it and it works (at least the Android client and web interface, I don't use Windows or Mac), enable doc in the control panel or request it to the domain admin, it is the same Google Docs permission

Paying apps user here, not working for me. I visit https://drive.google.com/start#home and get "Google Drive is not yet enabled for the XXXX domain." Visit the domain management page> settings> Drive and Docs Settings. "Allow users to install Google Drive for Mac/PC" and "Allow users to install Google Drive apps" were both already checked. Unchecked them, saved, re-checked them, saved. Refreshing https://drive.google.com/start#home still shows "Google Drive is not yet enabled for the XXXX domain." I get the same "Google Drive is not yet enabled for the XXXX domain." from my Android phone. Guess I'll try later, glad it's working for you...

Also, when is Google going to fix Contacts so that non-domain Contacts can be shared between domain users without resorting to third party workarounds?

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[javajawa]

Sure it is... that's how I'm using it...

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[flimflammer]

I'm using it just fine though my domain. In fact, there's even special considerations for domain users. When sharing links, I'm offered the added option to allow specific shared links to be shared only between my domain inhabitants.

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[robmv]

Do you have set in the domain settings "New User Features" = "Rapid Release"?. I have "Rapid Release", probably this is the reason your domain is waiting that we beta test it

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to enable the "Rapid Release" option in the domain settings -> general tab. After a few minutes the message on drive.google.com has changed to "Notify".

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[Anonymous Coward]

By any chance do you have the 'Scheduled Release' feature enabled where new stuff is added after a stabilisation period? I had that ticked but when I changed it to 'Rapid Release', drive became available on my domain.

Domain Settings -> New User Features -> Rapid Release

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[whoop]

I just checked and it was already set to Rapid Release, and I have no Drive. I set it to scheduled, and then back, but alas, it's not that simple. I guess I'll have to wait and wait for it to get rolled to any of my accounts.

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users.

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand corrected. By the end of the day, I was notified that it was now available.

The most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

but does it run linux? Ideally with FUSE?

Re:The most important question

[Pausanias]

No. Only Dropbox supports linux, and does it extremely well (though still proprietary).

Dropbox is the first internet company I've been excited about since Google back in 1998. They are run by a bunch of geeks, like Google used to be (MIT though, east coast style leadership vs. west coast/Stanford). Their syncing solution is elegant and just works. The day I tried Dropbox was they day my opinion of "the cloud" changed from a load of bull to actually something worthy of serious attention.

Re:The most important question

[MickyTheIdiot]

SpiderOak, though a slightly different syncing style, also works on Linux natively. Quite nicely, too.

Re:The most important question

[bored_engineer]

. . .though still proprietary

Nope. The Linux Dropbox client in licensed under the GPL. Zmanda, rsync.net, jungledisk and spideroak are other services that also work with linux.

Re:The most important question

[DdJ]

Heh, in a sense, the MobileMe iDisk supports Linux as well -- since the network protocol is simply WebDAV. Any WebDAV client can access the data and do whatever it wants with it.

(For a couple of months, anyhow. The switch from MobileMe to iCloud kills that feature.)

Re:The most important question

[aclarke]

I'd like Dropbox a lot more if they offered personal plans above 100GB. I have more like 400GB I'd like to sync between multiple computers, and store off-site. Therefore, Dropbox doesn't work for me. Google Drive will scale to 16TB.

Re:The most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

I see dropbox still tries to mislead people into thinking their client is Free (and according to you, succeeds in it). Their website weasels around the subject but the truth is that only the small piece that integrates with the file manager is open source and the actual client is not.

Re:The most important question

[greg1104]

I'm bothered by how the SpiderOak team is confident to the level of foolishness. "margin of error of 0.0000%"? Really? Anyone who believes that needs a serious reality check, and their sloppy thinking about failures is surely a business issue. I would wager that a single judge in Northbrook, IL could obliterate access to any backups I placed there. It takes more than redundant power, network connectivity, and servers to make a reliable backup platform.

Re:The most important question

[IronHalik]

There's Ubuntu One too. It has Linux, Windows, Android, iOS but lacks OSX. Although syncing wise, Dropbox is much better.

Re:The most important question

[sanvila]

I see dropbox still tries to mislead people into thinking their client is Free (and according to you, succeeds in it). Their website weasels around the subject but the truth is that only the small piece that integrates with the file manager is open source and the actual client is not.

Exactly. This is from the nautilus-dropbox Debian package available in non-free:

Installing this package will download the proprietary dropbox binary from dropbox.com.

That's far from being free software, unfortunately.

Re:The most important question

[Dan667]

the cloud is still just mainframes that someone decided to rename "the cloud" so people would not point out all the limitations with mainframes.

Re:The most important question

[godefroi]

Do you have a better suggestion than SpiderOak? My requirements are simple: I want to be able to sync files from arbitrary folders on multiple computers to the "cloud", and then sync other arbitrary folders between different machines.

JungleDisk does what I want (using a combination of the backup functionality and the sync functionality), but it seems to have been abandoned by Rackspace.

SpiderOak does what I want, but it has at least one bug where only one drive is available for syncing on one of my machines. SO doesn't seem to be able to help me.

SkyDrive doesn't do what I want, because even if I wrote my own software (the API is documented and powerful), file types that are outside their list of "known" types aren't uploadable through the API.

DropBox doesn't do what I want (only one folder).

Google Drive doesn't do what I want (only one folder, and Google owns everything).

ADrive

[Anonymous Coward]

ADrive offers 50GB of free storage. JFYI. :)

Huge price hike

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow, Google's storage expenses increased six-fold overnight as a result of implementing Drive.

Used to be: 20 GB - $5 80 GB - $20 200 GB - $50 400 GB - $100 1 TB - $256 etc
Now it's: 25 GB - $2.49 100 GB - $4.99 200 GB - $9.99 400 GB - $19.99 1 TB - $49.99

Oh, and those old prices were per year. New rates are per MONTH.

Re:Huge price hike

[ledow]

Because 5Gb total space for your email that sits virtually idle all the time and rarely searches back through the history of it (especially if your email client does it for you, like mine) is a very different matter to 5Gb that you intend to fill to the brim and use all the time with all your documents and share with dozens of other people.

Not only in terms of read access, but also in terms of sheer bandwidth to transmit like that (e.g. you CAN send 5Gb to 20 people on a 5Gb account whenever you like, but you can't do that with email!).

Re:Huge price hike

[bmo]

Not only in terms of read access, but also in terms of sheer bandwidth to transmit like that (e.g. you CAN send 5Gb to 20 people on a 5Gb account whenever you like, but you can't do that with email!).

What, exactly, stops me from sending 5GB to 1000 people via email?

--
BMO

Re:Huge price hike

[eyrieowl]

Of course you can, but c'mon, it's a vastly different model than simply sharing a link directly to a 5GB file. As a practical matter, you're probably unlikely to want to spend the time chunking up 5GB into 10-20MB attachments and then uploading them individually to separate emails to send out...and your 1000 recipients wouldn't thank you either.

Re:Huge price hike

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If I remember, this is also why Google made some quiet, but threatening, noises about what they would do to anybody who made serious use of the cute little 'gmailFS' FUSE projects that are available to slap a filesystem-like structure on top of your Gmail storage space.

It isn't rocket-surgery that Gmail quotas are often largely underused, and the stuff that is used is rich with delicious keywords to be mined any monetized, while bulk file storage brings out the packrat in people, and frequently ends up containing big huge lumps of 'boring-and-probably-pirated-.iso-I-might-need-again' which aren't worth much to the marketdroids...

Re:Huge price hike

[spire3661]

Clearly, all bits are equal.

Re:Huge price hike

[Anonymous Coward]

File attachment size limits?

Re:Huge price hike

[bmo]

>File attachment size limits?

How do you think DVD ISO files are posted to usenet?

--
BMO

Re:Huge price hike

[bmo]

We have these things called computers. They can break up files into handy chunks and do this automatically.

Indeed, have you ever heard of GmailFS?

http://sr71.net/projects/gmailfs/

--
BMO

Re:Huge price hike

[iluvcapra]

What, exactly, stops me from sending 5GB to 1000 people via email?

MTA limits, account quotas, the average mail client's terrible management of attachment uploading, a little thing called The Real World...

Re:Huge price hike

[bmo]

With Yahoo in the game also with "unlimited mailbox" sizes, you can do much the same thing. I see no reason why you can't adapt GmailFS for Yahoo (or any other IMAP provider) since it uses IMAP too.

Even without a FUSE, I've used Yahoo and Gmail as a poor-man's backup.

1. 7zip the documents. Encrypt optional.
2. Split up the 7zip
3. Send them to yourself as attachments.
??????
Backed up documents as if you stuck them on a flash drive.

This is handy when you are away and you've got nothing to back up on.

It's not rocket surgery.

--
BMO

Re:Huge price hike

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Indeed. And "email it to myself" has got to be the #2 backupstrategy(second only to childish hope) among the non-techies of the world.

My impression, at the time, was that Google was trying to, without stirring up a fuss, discourage the practice from becoming too common, too simple, or too widespread. A few geeks playing around with FUSE, or sending themselves zip chunks? Cost of doing business. Some $10 utility that 'turns your Gmail into a drive letter!" making the cover of PC Magazine? Not so good. So, they quietly pointed out that this was a ToS violation, that they could actually nuke your account if they wanted to, and largely left it at that. I don't think that anybody ever got nuked; but I never heard of anybody trying to commercialize backup software that made setting this up easy or selling some dodgy backup service using gmail accounts as a backend(don't laugh, it's no crazier than the 'hack unsecured corporated PBXes, sell cut-rate international phone cards' scam...)

Re:Huge price hike

[icebraining]

Just because it exists doesn't mean enough people will use them to become a problem.

Re:Huge price hike

[bmo]

But the question I posed was "what's actually stopping me from doing so?"

The answer to which is "nothing"

With email mailbox sizes in the multi-gigabyte range, this is trivial.

--
BMO

Re:Huge price hike

[Anonymous Coward]

Usenet - I remember that

Google:Let us know everything else about you

[Picass0]

Yes, I want to upload my financial information, work history, scans of legal documents, and anything else personal from my hard drive and have it spidered by Google. I'm sure they can be trusted. They've been so respectful so far of people's privacy.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[readandburn]

Wouldn't you encrypt your files before uploading them? I would.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're concerned about privacy check out https://truefriender.com/ disclaimer I built truefriender because we should have easy access to encryption and privacy. I built it and I'm just trying to get the word out now.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[ledow]

And if you're really that bothered - bugger off and buy a cheap VPS with loads of disk space and roll your own. It takes literally MINUTES to set up with something like FTP or WebDAV and SSH/SSL.

And you can even do full encryption on that storage if you don't even trust your host.

Or you could accept that Google are putting out a product for consumers, not hard-core-tech-geeks that want the ultimate in everything for free.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people won't know to do so and I see nothing in Google's docs telling you about how you should encrypt before sending to them.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[Reapman]

Why would you trust ANY 3rd party host for storing this unencrypted?

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[metrometro]

In theory, you can sync a TrueCrypt vault.

Anyone tried this yet? Works ok on Dropbox, although the initial upload is a beast (file of noise the size of your storage volume). Afterwards, I think it's only syncing the parts that change. Remote access requires downloading the whole file again.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Wouldn't you encrypt your files before uploading them? I would.

Personally I just wouldn't put those files anywhere on the net. I don't need a cloud backup of my tax returns, for example.

For some reason I am the only one on this site who has lotsa of data that I'd like to keep, but if it got out into the world, it wouldn't bother me a whole lot. "Oh noes, somebody found my legally purchased Chemical Brothers MP3s! PANIC!!"

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[element-o.p.]

I would expect people posting on /. to understand that you don't upload anything to Google that you don't want the world to see.

I've been using Google Docs for a while, and I love it. I have access to files from my work PC, my laptop at home, my netbook and/or phone while out-and-about...it's very convenient. I have also used Google Docs to share files with others, hands down a better solution than sending e-mails with attachments back and forth. However, and this is the crux of my point, NOTHING I have uploaded to Google Docs contains information that I really need to keep private. There is no tax information there, health records, etc. On Google Docs, I've got a spreadsheet tracking fuel consumption and maintenance records on my motorcycle (I'm a geek, what do you expect?), I've got another spreadsheet tracking upgrades and costs for motorcycle parts, I've got planning routes for motorcycle trips, a handful of recipes and a few other odds and ends...but nothing that would incriminate/embarrass/reveal trade secrets/allow identity theft. Bottom line: if you don't trust Google, then either limit what you upload to their servers, encrypt what you upload to their servers, or both. It's not exactly rocket science.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps more importantly, most people won't know how

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[Anonymous Coward]

Use Wuala (http://www.wuala.com) which encrypts everything locally. (Which also means that if you loose your password, you loose your data.) You can share data cryptographically with other users or not encrypted with the general public. It has Android and Iphone apps, supports Linux, Windows, OS X. You can upload stuff manually or you can sync Dropbox style or you can have versioned backup folders. I use it quite extensively.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[coinreturn]

Google's in bed with the NSA. They can decrypt your files, no problem.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[swillden]

I would expect people posting on /. to understand that you don't upload anything to Google that you don't want the world to see.

IMO, that's too strong.

I would not suggest uploading stuff that would incriminate you, because Google does respond to subpoenas. They have to. But as for other information which you don't want people to see... Google isn't going to publish your documents, or mine them for company confidential information -- though I wouldn't upload company confidential information to any service your employer hasn't specifically authorized (Note that Google Docs has been vetted by the US government and can be used for non-classified government information). Also, Google takes security seriously and is very unlikely to be hacked (yes, there was the Chinese hack reported a while back. Keep in mind that Google was one of hundreds of companies attacked, and Google was the only one to notice it and publish the information, and AFAIK, no user data was revealed. My understanding is that the hackers got into the corporate network, not the production network where user data lives).

Of course, you should do what you feel comfortable with, but tens if not hundreds of millions of people will put sensitive data in their Google Drive, just as hundreds of millions send sensitive information through Gmail, or perform web searches for sensitive topics, etc. Nearly all of Google's products are used to access or store information which could be important to users. How many cases of users being burned by that have you seen? Google is very careful with user data.

All of that said, I do encrypt my most sensitive data before putting it in Drive.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[DarthVain]

Yes, though the only one I have used is TrueCrypt, which allows you to encrypt entire drives or volumes. It also does allow you to make a slower growing encrypted container.

However I suspect that since most of these work via bandwidth limitations, they do a check to see what has been updated before upload. If you say create a 5GB volume or even a Container, it will try to validate this time (not seeing contents), and upload the max each and every time. I know all of these services have limitations and/or changes for bandwidth (GB/Month). I don't see any way around that limitation. Only way to do it would be server side encryption, if you believe in that. "Yes, we promise to not look at and encrypt your files as soon as we get them!" "BTW, Bro, I see you made 60K on your 2010 tax return, and that your registered a car more than 6 years old, How would you like to buy a brand new Toyota?"

Anyway I would not use these services without my own personal encryption. Particularly if you are sending only your most critical and sensitive files.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[Anonymous Coward]

I've tried this. WebDAV and SSH/SSL does *not* work anywhere near as well as Dropbox. When using WebDAV and SSH/SSL, I'm always afraid of accidentally deleting something, or having something get synced improperly (e.g. having an older version overwrite a newer version).

With dropbox, it just works. I've played a bit with Google Drive, and it seems to work also. Haven't given it a full workout though - can't do that until they there's a BoxCryptor-like app for ipad and a Linux client.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[Anonymous Coward]

"Note that Google Docs has been vetted by the US government and can be used for non-classified government information"

So, in other words, information that everyone in the world has a right to see?

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[swillden]

"Note that Google Docs has been vetted by the US government and can be used for non-classified government information"

So, in other words, information that everyone in the world has a right to see?

No. It's been a couple of decades since I was in the Air Force and learned about the various levels of information security applied by the federal government, and it may have changed some since then, but classified material requires all sorts of security controls that (I would expect) make it basically impossible to outsource to any third party. There is a large amount of sensitive but unclassified information, however, with various designations such as "for official use only", etc., which must be kept confidential and managed securely, but which can actually be processed on ordinary computers, kept in ordinary filing cabinets, doesn't require detailed access logs, etc. The vast majority of all of the information managed by the federal government, including the military, falls into this broad category, even though very little of it is published, and much of it would not be disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. For example, personnel records.

The specific "vetting" I mentioned was testing for compliance with FISMA, per some specified standards (which I don't know). I do security at Google, but I don't do anything related to Docs/Apps, and I have worked a lot with federal security standards in my career, but it's all been around security module and smart card technology, so I have only the vaguest idea of exactly what the FISMA certification means. As I understand it, it means that federal agencies can use Google Docs/Apps for their routine work, including for data that is considered sensitive, but not secret.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you

[wshyang]

In theory, you can sync a TrueCrypt vault.

Anyone tried this yet? Works ok on Dropbox, although the initial upload is a beast (file of noise the size of your storage volume). Afterwards, I think it's only syncing the parts that change. Remote access requires downloading the whole file again.

A truecrypt volume works ok on Dropbox, but I doubt it will work on Google Drive.

At least from a cursory observation of the Google Drive client's behaviour, I don't think it is syncing differences via binary diffs yet. It actually would reupload the entire file all over again.

SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

SkyDrive offers 25GB (max size per file is 100MB) for free. This allows almost all of my files to be stored on the SkyDrive. All of the large files and sensitive documents go in my TC container and synced with Dropbox, which, with all the incentives, is up to 3GB of free space.

What I really wish i could find would be a program that would split a truecrypt container into multiple files of a set size. Then the whole thing would fit on the SkyDrive.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[art123]

Skydrive just upped the max file size to 300MB when using the browser interface (I can confirm this because I had some PDFs I used to split but I replaced them with single files this week).

I also believe that they allow 2GB file size for the desktop client.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[Overzeetop]

Ah, to have such a simple life as to fit in 28GB of space.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[blueg3]

I doubt it's helpful, but Apple's disk image encryption (really, the disk images one layer below the encryption) supports that. Sparsebundles automatically work that way; you can also manually create split images of a predefined size (though perhaps only on the command line).

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I agree - for once MS did something almost right. 25GB for free is excellent. Personally I would like 1TB for free, but that'll come later...

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[WolfgangPG]

This is all out of date as of yesterday. Max file size sync has changed, etc... Please keep up!

Skydrive offers 7GB for Free, Google Drive offers 5GB. Sky Drive offers a max of 100GB of Paid Storage, Google Drive offers 16TB of paid storage.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/04/23/the-next-chapter-for-skydrive-personal-cloud-storage-for-windows-available-anywhere.aspx
https://apps.live.com/skydrive

They need to update their Google compare: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/skydrive/compare
Make sure you keep up with the news :)

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[WolfgangPG]

Android App for SkyDrive: https://apps.live.com/skydrive/app/4c12c1cf-063a-4440-a75b-1fe1ea0b9df5

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

What I really wish i could find would be a program that would split a truecrypt container into multiple files of a set size. Then the whole thing would fit on the SkyDrive.

Do you mean something to just split the container file into pieces for upload and rejoin the files if you need to download them? As opposed to something that would allow TC to treat the split files as one volume?

If that's the case and you're using Windows then Swiss File Knife can do the split/join. It does even more besides that.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[tgd]

SkyDrive offers 25GB (max size per file is 100MB) for free. This allows almost all of my files to be stored on the SkyDrive. All of the large files and sensitive documents go in my TC container and synced with Dropbox, which, with all the incentives, is up to 3GB of free space.

What I really wish i could find would be a program that would split a truecrypt container into multiple files of a set size. Then the whole thing would fit on the SkyDrive.

I believe the update to SkyDrive that went live this week now allows 2GB files. And still appears to work via WebDAV, plus has an offline mode.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[gstoddart]

Windows XP is the first stable OS to come out of that company, so I had high hopes they had turned around... but then I experienced Vista. :-(

So, apropos to nothing and totally off topic ... I must be the only person who has had a positive Vista experience.

It got put onto a brand new machine bought specifically for it, had loads of resources (8GB RAM, quad core, started with 2x1TB drives), and it has been really stable. I even found the UAT thing only asked me for the password when I would expect to be asked for it.

Considering how long I spent hating Microsoft, even I have to admit that, for me, Vista has been a very good OS.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using SkyDrive right now. Seems to work just fine.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

unless you already had SkyDrive, then you get a free upgrade to 25GB.
(http://www.gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/technology/gadgetbox/how-keep-your-free-25gb-microsoft-skydrive-storage-730877)

Please try and keep up!!! ;-)

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[PCM2]

Free accounts can only upgrade to 25GB for a limited time, provided they have a few files on SkyDrive already. New users will only get 7GB for free.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they did the smart thing in the change over and not automatically delete the files of anyone over the new 7GB limit and not start to charge them for the new amounts yet.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[Barefoot Monkey]

It's 7GiB for free. 25 gigs was for those who happen to have signed up before yesterday. I only heard about it yesterday and was rather disappointed to have missed out, but 7 gigs for nothing is still pretty good. The 100MiB limit is for uploads using the web interface - uploads through the SkyDrive app have a 2GiB limit.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[mattack2]

It got put onto a brand new machine bought specifically for it, had loads of resources (8GB RAM, quad core, started with 2x1TB drives), and it has been really stable.

Wow, you bought a brand new, really high end machine, and the latest OS works well on it?

Who woulda thunk it!

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[gstoddart]

Wow, you bought a brand new, really high end machine, and the latest OS works well on it?

Who woulda thunk it!

That wasn't my point -- a lot of the kvetching about Vista I've heard has been about how people didn't like the GUI, didn't like UAC, or generally found it to be substandard in a lot of ways.

It's entirely possible that throwing it at big hardware solves all of the problems most people had, but the resources specifically weren't what I've seen most of the bitching about.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[AmiMoJo]

50MB/file limit though. My camera shoots about 4MB of video per second...

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better

[cpu6502]

Skydrive?
One word:
Microsoft.

How many chances am I supposed to give this company? They've let me down almost every time... the earliest being when I tried to multitask in Windows 3 and 95, but it hung the system repeatedly (cooperative tasking sucks). Then I tried to play Wing Commander and it refused to run due to graphics-card incompatibilities/broken drivers. I ended-up playing the Commodore Amiga version instead (just plug'n'play). More recently MS media player refuses to execute half the movies I throw at it. Thank god for VLC player.

Windows XP was the first stable OS to come out of that company, so I had high hopes they had turned around... but then I experienced Vista on my brother's brand-new 1/2 gig machine. It was ass..... random freeze-ups for 2-3 minutes.

Better to avoid MS as much as possible. I'll use their OS because it's the defacto-standard, but nothing else, and most certainly not their SkyDrive. It would probably lose my files.

Porn?

[BenoitRen]

Does this allow the storage of porn? :)

Re:Porn?

[who_stole_my_kidneys]

you only have 5GB of porn? damn, guess im perverted one :-P

Re:Porn?

[TubeSteak]

you only have 5GB of porn? damn, guess im perverted one :-P

He probably has the exact same number of files as you, but all the videos have been downconverted to postage stamp sized real media files.
I mean, haven't you ever looked at a girl and wished she was slightly more... pixelated?

Re:Porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering I get most of my porn from xhamster now there isn't much of a reason to store any.

Re:Porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

You only have one google identity?

WebDAV

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't anyone offering support for it?

Or did I miss something?

If I have to FTP another file I may scream....

Re:WebDAV

[rgbrenner]

Looked into this because I thought it was a good idea.. but Webdav in windows is basically non-existant in pre-win7.. and pretty flaky in win 7. So there goes 95% of your market right there.

Re:WebDAV

[PCM2]

That's not true... Windows has had "Web folders" since Windows 98. It's not the greatest way to mount a network share, but I definitely used WebDAV in XP.

you're pathetic

[1800maxim]

1. Don't use Google Drive. Who's forcing you to?
2. Why not go with Dropbox? Oh, right, they can do the same crawling through your data.
3. Finally, uhm.. Thought about encrypting with TrueCrypt and uploading the entire encrypted file?

Ahh, but why think proactively about security on a free service but useful service when it's much easier to complain and bitch.

Re:you're pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Don't use Google Drive. Who's forcing you to?

Hey thanks! That's a simple solution to GP's problems... it's surprising that they didn't think of that by themselves!

Re:you're pathetic

[wshyang]

1. Don't use Google Drive. Who's forcing you to? 2. Why not go with Dropbox? Oh, right, they can do the same crawling through your data. 3. Finally, uhm.. Thought about encrypting with TrueCrypt and uploading the entire encrypted file? Ahh, but why think proactively about security on a free service but useful service when it's much easier to complain and bitch.

To be honest I'd actually trust Dropbox quite a bit more than I'd trust Google. Dropbox after all is not in the advertising business, it is not like they'd have any value with my data.

I was actually initially having the same sentiment as GP, but in the end I just threw up my hands in sweet surrender and went along with it. Let's face it, I use Gmail, I use Gtalk, I own an Android phone, I use Google search.

Google already knows more about what I browse on the internet, what sort of links I'd prefer to click, and should they somehow have the ability to weaponise themselves they even have real time GPS coordinates to order a surgical strike on me using some low orbiting satelite mounted laser... courtesy of my Android phone.

Having 5gb more of my reports, resumes, and other various documents (which they probably already have countless duplicates of already thanks to Gmail) is not going to do them much.

Sweet

[boast]

Google Drive is available for:
PC and Mac

Avaliable for PC? Sweet. But, I can't find the AmigaOS link.

They are too lazy to check browser language prefs

[weeble]

Google as ever uses reverse IP lookup rather than browser preferences to set the language (language preferences only work once you log in and often even not when logged in). They assume people do not travel and everyone within a particular geographical area will only speak the dominant language.

Google - No Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Gmail redesign disaster has shown something it is this: Google will fuck you if they feel like it.

I much prefer Dropbox or any other smaller competitor to Google's arrogance.

Old storage isn't new storage, Screw Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're one of those people who has been paying google for extra storage already, this won't help you. You can keep the old plan, but then you can't have Drive. And no Linux support.

Google owns everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that Google will own everything you upload http://cl.ly/1W2h1A163p0W2A3C0M0q

Re:Google owns everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, FUD much? Even Dropbox says that for legal reasons.

Re:Google owns everything

[rgbrenner]

how is it fud if it's true? google terms of service

And what legal reason do you think there is for public display and distribution of your files? Because that's what it says... as long as it's for the "purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones". So if google wants to use your programming project that you backed up to google drive to develop a new service.. you think that is ok?

Re:Google owns everything

[rgbrenner]

how is it fud if it's true? google drive terms of service

And what legal reason do you think they have for requiring that you let them use your files to develop new services? Because that's what it says. Do you really think it's ok if google takes your programming project that you backed up to google drive to develop a new service?

Re:They are too lazy to check browser language pre

[Anonymous Coward]

They've done this as far back as I remember. The correct engineering solution (check the header) is also easier.

Google are terrible engineers, I can't stand any of their products, even the search interface is now a piece of shit.

No linux client

[A nonymous Coward]

Dropbox has one, Google Drive doesn't. That's a killer for me.

Re:No linux client

[Anonymous Coward]

it runs on wine 1.4 with ie8

Re:No linux client

[lokedhs]

There is an open API. This API has been around forever, since it's the same as Google Docs. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a client already exists (I'm too lazy to google for it right now).

Re:No linux client

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I looked, Dropbox only has a proprietary blob. Google Drive will likely get open source clients, including FUSE, command line, and sync.

Dropbox...in a box?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive me if I just haven't looked hard enough, but I'd love to see a NAS solution that works like Dropbox. I love Dropbox, but I hate having my files on a remote server. Would love to have the backing store under my control.

Re:Dropbox...in a box?

[Dr_Barnowl]

How about this : Synctus. Disclaimer : met the designer at an Ubuntu social and discussed his tech, which seems to be sound.

Re:Dropbox...in a box?

[V for Vendetta]

Not sure if it works like Dropbox (have never used DB myself), but worth a look I guess: ownCloud

Maximize your privacy with personal cloud servers

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't trust any cloud data services. Setup your own network drive on your home network is not difficult at all.

Strange way to "sync" Google Docs

[safetyinnumbers]

I installed the client, told it to sync my existing Google Docs, and it only created some 174-byte files containing URLs of the docs. Apparently I'm meant to use Google Chrome with "work offline" for offline access. I was hoping that this would be a way to automatically back up the docs instead of manually exporting them.

Specifics?

[DragonWriter]

It appears to only work with Google Docs

This is true in the sense that Google Docs could already store any kind of file and what Google did with drive was:
1. Rename Google Docs to "Drive"
2. Expand the free storage quota
3. Provide desktop and mobile apps and SDK

Its false in the sense that you can store files that Google Docs can't edit (and, you can use the web interface to edit files that Docs can't edit itself, since the Drive SDK allows Drive apps installed through the Chrome Web Store to register associations with file types so that "open with [app]" is available from the Drive UI (and the user can chose to set an app as the default editor for a particular file type, as well.)

I tried signing up with my regular gmail account and it wouldn't let me.

I had no problem logging in with my non-apps account. In fact, if I'm logged in and navigate to docs.google.com, I actually get the Drive web UI (which is virtually identical to what the Docs UI was before Drive was introduced.)

Plus, I thought you could store your Docs files online before?

Google Docs included both a number of file editor applications and universal (any file) cloud storage. Drive is basically an enhancement to the cloud storage part (which is now renamed) to expand the free quota, provide desktop apps which provide desktop integration, providing an SDK, etc,

I don't see how it's different, except being much less useful than its competitors.

How is it "much less useful than its competitors"?

Re:Specifics?

[hendridm]

I had no problem logging in with my non-apps account.

See this reply: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2808161&cid=39785503

Apparently it's not available to my non-Apps account, which is fine. I just wanted to check it out.

In fact, if I'm logged in and navigate to docs.google.com, I actually get the Drive web UI (which is virtually identical to what the Docs UI was before Drive was introduced.) ... How is it "much less useful than its competitors"?

I don't have to use Google Docs with Dropbox. I can just drag and drop files to the share in Finder. I don't want to use Google Docs!

Re:Specifics?

[DragonWriter]

I don't have to use Google Docs with Dropbox.

You don't have to use the "Google Docs" (even if, by that, you mean the Google Drive web UI which used to be the Google Docs file list web UI) with Drive either.

I can just drag and drop files to the share in Finder.

And you can drag-and-drop files to Google Drive when you have the MacOS or Windows desktop app installed, too.

I don't want to use Google Docs!

I'm not sure what you mean by "Google Docs" here.

If you mean "the cloud storage space for any kind of file that used to be part of Google Docs", well, since that's what Drive's storage is, that's kind of a deal breaker (if a circular argument) with Drive.

If you mean "the Google Drive web UI, which used to be the Google Docs file list web UI", you don't have to use those with Drive, though it is available.

If you mean "the various Google editors for documents, spreadsheets, drawings, and presentation that were and still are called 'Google Docs'", you don't have to use those with Drive either, though they are available (and the SDK allows third-party web apps to supplement them for creating or editing files online, and even to replace them as the default editors for various file types.)

Re:Specifics?

[hendridm]

If you mean "the various Google editors for documents, spreadsheets, drawings, and presentation that were and still are called 'Google Docs'", you don't have to use those with Drive either, though they are available (and the SDK allows third-party web apps to supplement them for creating or editing files online, and even to replace them as the default editors for various file types.)

I thought that's what Google Docs is. Regardless, how do I use it outside of the above definition? Linky? drive.google.com isn't terribly helpful, unless I'm missing something.

Re:Specifics?

[Anonymous Coward]

The link is drive.google.com

It sounds like they're doing this rollout in stages, as they frequently do. You just need to be patient until your account gets access.

My account has access. I went to drive.google.com, downloaded and installed the app, and now I have 5 gb of storage that can be used EXACTLY like dropbox.

Your objections are based on inaccurate assumptions.

Re:Specifics?

[hendridm]

Your objections are based on inaccurate assumptions.

Well, they were based on trying it. :)

Re:Specifics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. However, I had purchased larger Gmail storage earlier, and when I look through the "pricing" page, there is a link buried WAY at the bottom to information about keeping my "old" plan instead of "upgrading" to more expensive storage. Look here at the URL of that link:

http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=39567&p=butter_old_storage

Note the "butter_old_storage" in the URL. They've basically pulled a Verizon/AT&T by putting a strict set of conditions under which I can keep my "old" plan of 20Gb of Drive space for 5 bucks/year. It's not THAT much more for 25 gigs, but I don't care, I'll stick with my "old"plan as long as I can... :)

Re:Specifics?

[DragonWriter]

If you mean "the various Google editors for documents, spreadsheets, drawings, and presentation that were and still are called 'Google Docs'", you don't have to use those with Drive either, though they are available (and the SDK allows third-party web apps to supplement them for creating or editing files online, and even to replace them as the default editors for various file types.)

I thought that's what Google Docs is.

Now that the rest of what was Google Docs before today has been renamed "Drive", that is what Google Docs is. The cloud storage and web-based file list UI that are now part of what is called "Google Drive" used to also be part of "Google Docs". You can use the Drive part without using the Docs part (essentially, the Docs part is a set of apps that handle create/open actions from within Drive, and which can now be supplemented with third-party apps that can do the same thing.)

Regardless, how do I use it outside of the above definition?

1. The same way you could use the cloud storage part of Google Docs without using the online editors part that is still "Google Docs" before the cloud storage was renamed Drive -- upload via the Drive (ex-Docs) web UI, share via the Drive web UI, and download via the Drive web UI. None of that requires the online editors.

2. Using the new desktop applications, which provide a synchronized local copy of the files stored in your Drive (ex-Docs) cloud storage.

3. Using third party web apps installed through the Chrome Web Store using the new Drive SDK which can manipulate files stored in your drive cloud storage, including the ability to handle create/open actions initiated through the web UI.

Linky? drive.google.com isn't terribly helpful, unless I'm missing something.

CNETs How to get started with Google Drive
Google Drive SDK docs

Re:Specifics?

[swalve]

Are the files available offline, like in Dropbox?

Re:Specifics?

[DragonWriter]

Are the files available offline, like in Dropbox?

That's what the desktop app provides, yes.

Some questions

[edmicman]

After reading a few articles, here's what I still want to know:

If you want to pay for the service, can you opt for a year-long contract or something? It seems like a reasonable price, but I'd rather not have yet another monthly charge.

How does the space work compared with whatever allocated space your other Google services have? Right now I've got some amount of Gmail space, some amount of Picasa space, unlimited (?) Google+ space for images and videos (which still show up in Picasa web but don't apply to the quota?), and then the Google Docs space. Will there be any consolidation of this? Do I want there to be?

Will we be able to use the GDrive app on my phone to store something like a keepass password file (encrypted) and access it from multiple devices? I can do that with Dropbox right now.

Re:Some questions

[bonno van der putten]

I suspect that for a lot of people, the free 5 gigs in combination with Google's Music and Picasa services will just about cover everything.

Re:Some questions

[AmiMoJo]

You used to be able to pay yearly but they hiked the prices massively and moved to monthly payment with the release of Drive. I am still on $5/year for 20GB, but that will now cost $30/year under the new plan.

Re:Some questions

[whoop]

Google has a little breakdown of the old-vs-new plans. They say the purchased storage is shared with everything, but my Gmail says I have 208, so they add the default 8GB to it.

Re:Some questions

[edmicman]

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for!

Re:Some questions

[zyzko]

At least for me the space is already consolidated. I have bought 20Gb extra and Picasa shows 21Gb of "total space" and GDrive 25Gb. (Difference is due to what they offer for free by default.)

What's in it for them?

[bazorg]

Apart from what this chap has said... what's in it for them? why would this all be free forever? I got a Skydrive for free with MSN messenger/Windows phone without asking for it, iPhone buyers get an iCloud thrown in with the deal, Android phones need (?) a google account... where's the catch?

Re:What's in it for them?

[shutdown -p now]

It's a tie-in to their platform. If you use iCloud, that goes best (or only?) with an iOS or OS X device. SkyDrive, the official client is Windows only, and on mobile devices it works best on Windows Phone. Similarly with Google Drive, you can bet that Android will have preferential treatment in terms of quality of integration.

Re:What's in it for them?

[DragonWriter]

what's in it for them? why would this all be free forever?

Because it (via the SDK) gives people an incentive to store more files in Google's cloud storage, and turns what used to be the Google Docs web interface (now renamed as the Google Drive web interface) into a virtual desktop on which web applications -- sold through the Google Chrome Web Store -- can be used from any browser to access the stored files. By increasing the attractiveness of the Chrome Web Store to application developers (because it provides a user base besides Chrome browser and Chrome OS users to target), it makes Google more money as a middleman in app sales.

Oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was going to be about their self-driving cars...

Re:They are too lazy to check browser language pre

[Anonymous Coward]

What bothers me about their UI is how they display images in gmail. My wife sends a photo to my email address, from her phone, and the thumbnail displays correctly. I then click on the View link below the image to view it full-size, and it's rotated incorrectly. Why is their thumbnail display reading the meta-data for rotation correctly, but not the full-size viewer?

Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be out live but is it out of Beta and how long do you think it will take for Google to get tired or it and cancel it?

Re:No linux client - tarsnap

[Anonymous Coward]

I like tarsnap

It's expensive, not a "drive" really, but it is encrypted to the extent that they *can't* access your data.

It works on linux, AND most importantly (and often forgotten these days!) it runs on FreeBSD... so it's good for servers too.

I have no business interests in tarsnap. If I were to use "google" it'd be for mp3's and such, but thats about it.

Picasa is only 1GB!

[bogie]

Are you a paying client or something?

Per http://support.google.com/picasa/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1224181&topic=1689654&ctx=topic

"Picasa Web Albums offers 1 GB of free storage for photos and videos"

"Photos up to 800 x 800 pixels and videos up to 15 minutes won't count towards your free storage."

So maybe videos are fine but it looks like Picasa Web Albums is pretty much worthless for Photo storage.

Btw I haven't used it yet, but when I signed up for Live Drive they gave me 25GB free. I personally think 5B is a joke for company like Google. I was expecting something like 50GB per user Free and then plans for 100GB and up.

Re:Picasa is only 1GB!

[Grizzley9]

MS Live Mesh (SkyDrive) gives you 25 GB of uploadable storage but the synced style like DropBox and Google Drive is limited to 5GB. Also the synced folders don't show up in your SkyDrive account. So MS has some confusion over the separate services it has.

Re:Picasa is only 1GB!

[PsyberS]

Are you a paying client or something?

Per http://support.google.com/picasa/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1224181&topic=1689654&ctx=topic

Actually per your own link, the limit the GP was referring to (2048x2048) is if you are a Google+ user.

"Photos up to 2048 x 2048 pixels and videos up to 15 minutes won't count towards your free storage."

Re:Picasa is only 1GB!

[Anonymous Coward]

MS Live Mesh (SkyDrive) gives you 25 GB of uploadable storage but the synced style like DropBox and Google Drive is limited to 5GB. Also the synced folders don't show up in your SkyDrive account. So MS has some confusion over the separate services it has.

This all changed when they upgraded SkyDrive a few days ago. Syncing is now integrated in SkyDrive, with a SkyDrive folder that show up on your PC/Mac (new client install) and mobile and on the web account. They now have 7GB for free (existing users can keep 25GB for free forever, nice offer). Much simpler and better, and mesh will probably die (though the really hardcore mesh users will miss some of the functionality, like ability to sync different folders selectively)

Edit: its Skydrive that 25GB not live drive

[bogie]

Sorry meant to say Skydrive.

Google Drive does not go Live

[EmagGeek]

It tells me it's not ready yet.

Google drive with True Crypt?

[cayenne8]

I'm wondering if there is a way to easily set up TrueCrypt for the google disk...across multiple machines?

Thinking that would be a convenient way to use the 'free' space, yet keep it from Google's prying eyes....

Re:Google drive with True Crypt?

[Binestar]

Convenient and encryption doesn't seem to go well together. The closest I have found for windows and these cloud devices is AxCrypt, which lets you encrypt and password protect each individual file you store.

Re:Google drive with True Crypt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try BoxCryptor. http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/encrypt-dropbox-files-boxcryptor/. Install it on each machine. It creates a Drive that acts as a front end to the cloud drive and encrypts/decrypts on the fly. I saw it here a couple of weeks ago for some other article. I would post on my other account, but I am modding too. I want to help, but not strip the modded posts. :)

Re:Google drive with True Crypt?

[RockDoctor]

Probably not directly. Truecrypt works at a pretty low level - all encryptions do - while I'd expect these services to work at the file level, or at least block-level streaming.

Did the title make anyone else think of a car?

[darkwing_bmf]

When I saw the title I got my hopes up but was soon disappointed. "Google - Drive me to Taco Bell" is much more interesting than yet another data storage service...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE

Oh god you are insane

[SmallFurryCreature]

Ten to one this delusional paranoid schizophrenic has absolutely NO problem running closed source OS on closed source hardware put together in China.

But ooooh, the uploader on closed hardware and a closed OS to unknown servers, now that uploader, THAT is the bit to worry about.

You are broadcasting an IP and I can't monitor the glow from your monitor and the radiation of your CPU to read your mind. Booga booga!

Just go hide in a hole and line it with lead. That should keep you safe.

Oh and has been pointed out, the API is open and available, write your own client if you must. Oops, how are you going to make certain the compiler can be trusted?

Let me fix that for you

[SuperKendall]

Wouldn't you encrypt your files before uploading them TO A COMPANY WITH A VASTLY POWERFUL DISTRIBUTED AND HIGHLY PARALLEL COMPUTING ARRAY? I would.

Do not annoy the Google by slowing down the inevitable scan, for when it finally reaches your data you will find fragments of it in Google Ads online for years after.

Re:Let me fix that for you

[slimjim8094]

TO A COMPANY WITH A VASTLY POWERFUL DISTRIBUTED AND HIGHLY PARALLEL COMPUTING ARRAY?

So either Google has an existence proof that P=NP and is using that fact to show you ads, or they're magic. Which one do you think it is? Oh, and "has a million machines at their bidding that can drop everything and work on your Quicken document for a few hundred billion years" isn't a third choice.

SkyDrive REST apis

[Anonymous Coward]

SkyDrive has a bunch of REST apis you can use that don't require installing any client software: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/live/hh243648.aspx

Re:SkyDrive REST apis

[DragonWriter]

SkyDrive has a bunch of REST apis you can use that don't require installing any client software: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/live/hh243648.aspx

So does Google Drive. https://developers.google.com/drive/v1/reference/

Templar Conspiracy

[Imagix]

Is it just me, or does the logo look suspiciously close to Abstergo Industries' logo?

What are the prospects for a 3rd-party FUSE client

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a few years ago someone wrote a FUSE client for GMail.

What are the odds that someone will be able to write a FUSE client for Google Drive?

Does anyone know if there's something in the Google Drive API that forbids (or tries to forbid) usage by anything other than an Officially Approved® Google Client?

I assume that the Google Drive API would need to remain fairly stable and backward-compatible, so such a FUSE project should be successful -- assuming there are no artificial obstacles in the API to prevent such a client from being written. Is that a fair assumption?

Or do you think it's likely that Google will eventually provide their own FUSE client for Google Drive (like they did for Google Docs with "google-docs-fs")?

Not Interested

[AmberBlackCat]

Not interested because I've already seen what they did with their Google Music player. I spent days uploading all of my music. After a storm, I found I no longer had 4G coverage at my desk (I was actually able to get 4G everywhere in the building except the one place I had to be all day). Anyway, so suddenly I couldn't stream music fast enough to play it without buffering. I started setting Google to make more and more of the music available offline. Eventually I grew tired of their music player because their shuffle mode seems to randomly play songs rather than shuffle them (it was actually possible it would play the same song twice in a row, or never get around to playing every song). So I went back to the Amazon music player. And that's when I realized the Google player does make the music available offline, but apparently in a format only the Google player can use, even though they were mp3 and aac in the first place. So there's no way I'd use them for the rest of my file types. I don't want Word documents that can only be viewed with Google Docs, or mp4 files that can only be viewed with Google TV or whatever. Why can't it just download the same file I uploaded?

No linux client

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose that Google like being sued by lawyers from Microsoft and Apple because of frivolous patent on Android. That is certainly why they favor Windows and Macosx Clients over Linux. Linux, you know the little thing they freely use for android and some of their thousands servers.

UDP file transfer?

[TheSync]

Do any of the cloud storage services come with a UDP file transfer system?

Trying to move video files with TCP is silly.

Re:UDP file transfer?

[jschottm]

Trying to move video files with TCP is silly.

No, TCP is the protocol to use if you're moving video because you want to do an accurate transmission of the data and adding error checking to UDP is silly when there's a protocol that does it out of the box.

If you're talking on-demand playback, you might have a point, but the majority of the users out there have UDP port filtered and possibly firewalled and it's easier to just send data to TCP port 80 than deal with firewall issues.

Re:UDP file transfer?

[TheSync]

No, TCP is the protocol to use if you're moving video because you want to do an accurate transmission of the data and adding error checking to UDP is silly when there's a protocol that does it out of the box.

TCP is silly because the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm is very inefficient, and it leads to exceedingly slow file transfers especially over connections with high latency (say LA to London). The TCP bandwidth-delay product limit only depends round trip time, and can slow you down far below the actual amount of bandwidth you have actually purchased.

In Hollywood, everyone moves large video files using UDP file transfer protocols such Aspera and Signiant.

Apparently Aspera is working on a solution for S3

Odd names lately

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Drive! As in... unmanned vehicles? Uh, no, HARD drive. Ah, okay.
Google Play! As in... play a game? Uh, no, play BUTTON on your remote. Sure!

Don't they do the least bit of testing with these names?

Insync - Alternative using Google Docs

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who can't wait for it to become "ready" or to try out a different implementation, give Insync a try

https://www.insynchq.com/

Messed up the pricing

[Seb C.]

Just bought 20Gb extra storage (mainly for picasaweb) a month ago. Payed 5 bucks a year for 20Gb.
Now for 25Gb, i would have to pay 2,5 bucks a month.
The pricing went for about 6 times the previous pricing plans. That's very disappointing.
I won't go for google new pricing plans. If i ever need more, i'd rather pay for smugmug or something for my pictures, and may be keep my old good plan for google drive, until they kick me out..
Honestly, google, why do you want me to pay that much for synced data (means that those data are duplicated -and thus backed up- around my computers) ?

I think they really missed the point. (and increasing pricing to that level is just non-sense to me).

WTF?

[rickintx]

Google says, "Your drive is not ready." Then there is a notify me button, which I clicked. So now, they will email me when my Google Drive is ready.....
WTF?

Difficult to Be Enthused

[DakotaSmith]

I'm sorry, but in June I'm getting 100GB as part of my $36-annually MetaARPA membership over at SDF. Not to mention the UNIX shell account I've been using there for fifteen years. And the private Minecraft server. And Gopher. And dev tools. And VPNs, VPSs, a boatload of other stuff ...

Not to mention I'll be able to mount the SDF 100GB to my Linux box using SSHFS under FUSE.

Re:No linux client - tarsnap

[Anonymous Coward]

You can encrypt files that you upload to Drive too...

Re:What are the prospects for a 3rd-party FUSE cli

[DragonWriter]

Does anyone know if there's something in the Google Drive API that forbids (or tries to forbid) usage by anything other than an Officially Approved® Google Client?

Not really. The closest thing is that apps have no access to a user's Google Drive unless the user has installed the app through the Chrome Web Store. And given the way Google uses OAuth, if you want to have an app that access the Drive API without an immediate web interface that the user is logged into, you'll need them to approve (via the web) a special "offline" token for your app, as well as installing it through the Chrome Web Store. But there doesn't seem anything that prevents a third-party desktop app so long as it jumps through the right hoops.

Or do you think it's likely that Google will eventually provide their own FUSE client for Google Drive (like they did for Google Docs with "google-docs-fs")?

AFAIK, google-docs-fs was not provided by Google, it was provided by a third-party developer who happened to host the project on Google Code.

Russian?

[bobstreo]

So can somebody tell my why my drive is in russian?

I can't use translate on the page to figure out HTF to change the language...

cyphertite

[Anonymous Coward]

google is trash and people who value their privacy should run not walk. Try something like cyphertite instead https://www.cyphertite.com/ . Demonstrable security and privacy. Try it folks.

Google Drive launch video--reimagined

[limber]

As narrated by Morpheus.
As narrated by Kyle Reese. Enjoy!

owncloud

[PhattyMatty]

Or you could run http://owncloud.org/ on the server of your choosing and keep all your data to yourself.

The features are a mixed bag, but they're growing strong in all directions. http://owncube.com/ is a hosted option for it.

Re:They are too lazy to check browser language pre

[Anonymous Coward]

So constructing a database of IP->language mappings is lazier than reading a string from the browser?

Perhaps in many regions, that browser string isn't properly configured?

FALSE.

[brunes69]

Google Drive is just a re-brand of Google Docs, and thus there are a plethora of Linux clients. A quick (Google) search brought up 5 in my first page of results. SFFS looks the best from my quick perusal, offering full sync of any folder you choose, either constantly or on a schedule. Saying there are "no Linux clients" is simply false.

Not false

[A nonymous Coward]

Google doesn't think so; they don't include linux in their list of clients. They think there is some difference.

Drive IS the new Docs

[DragonWriter]

I trust Google to be around for a while, but not necessarily any of their services beyond Search, Gmail, Youtube, and (to a smaller extent) Docs.

Well, that seems to cover the immediate issue, since "Drive" is just a new name for the heart of Docs (what used to be the Docs web UI is now called "Drive" and looks pretty much exactly the same except for the branding, the Drive web UI is the place on the web where you access the files that used to be part of Docs, and where you invoke web applications to create or edit them -- including the Docs apps, though with the rename also came a new SDK which allows third-party apps to be installed and be invoked through the same UI.)

It's Alive!

[micahjc]

It's Alive!!!!!11one!

The 'killer feature' of SkyDrive/Mesh

[Augury]

The 'killer feature' of SkyDrive/Mesh for me is the ability to synchronise files across all my devices, even if my cloud storage is full. In fact, I can select which files/folders to synchronise into the cloud in the first place, allowing me to manage the capacity I'm using and only back the most critical data up into the cloud.

Goes Google drive have this feature?