Google Releases Open Source File Sharing Project 'Upspin' On GitHub (betanews.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Releases Open Source File Sharing Project 'Upspin' On GitHub (betanews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @01:00AM from the lock-up-and-throw-away-the-key dept.

BrianFagioli quotes a report from BetaNews: Today, Google unveiled yet another way to share files. Called "Upspin," the open source project aims to make sharing easier for home users. With that said, the project does not seem particularly easy to set up or maintain. For example, it uses Unix-like directories and email addresses for permissions. While it may make sense to Google engineers, I am dubious that it will ever be widely used. "Upspin looks a bit like a global file system, but its real contribution is a set of interfaces, protocols, and components from which an information management system can be built, with properties such as security and access control suited to a modern, networked world. Upspin is not an "app" or a web service, but rather a suite of software components, intended to run in the network and on devices connected to it, that together provide a secure, modern information storage and sharing network," says Google. The search giant adds: "Upsin is a layer of infrastructure that other software and services can build on to facilitate secure access and sharing. This is an open source contribution, not a Google product. We have not yet integrated with the Key Transparency server, though we expect to eventually, and for now use a similar technique of securely publishing all key updates. File storage is inherently an archival medium without forward secrecy; loss of the user's encryption keys implies loss of content, though we do provide for key rotation."

58 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That example by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:13 · Score: 1

>With that said, the project does not seem particularly easy to set up or maintain. For example, it uses Unix-like directories and email addresses for permissions. While it may make sense to Google engineers, I am dubious that it will ever be widely used.
I, for one, am unable to find an example that is less to the point.
1. Re: That example by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  You are
2. Re: That example by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-23 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  No c:? Usernames might contain an @ symbol? That all sounds really confusing; people will never understand that.
Unix-like directories? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:14 · Score: 0

How else do you define a directory structure? Are windows users really going to freak out if there isn't a drive letter?
1. Re:Unix-like directories? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is a problem that was solved long, long ago. You have to start somewhere. You start at a drive, which is the 'root' of the directory structure. You typically would assign this drive an alphabetic letter, starting with A:. Historically the A: drive was the floppy drive (not really floppy, but don't get me started on that). But nowadays with the internet we really don't need floppy drives so that drive is available for you OS or whatever. The folders basically form a tree and branch structure that start at the root drive and branch from there. This is the way that computers have worked for over 20 years. This is the way that directory structures work.
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=drive+let...
2. Re:Unix-like directories? by squiggleslash · 2017-02-22 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  This must be why Macs have a reputation of being so hard to use. No drive letters. /s
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
3. Re:Unix-like directories? by MightyMartian · 2017-02-22 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Drive letters are by and large a hangover from CP/M and DOS, and could have been eliminated, or at least deprecated as early as Windows NT 3.5. Frankly, driver letter are completely ludicrous, to the point of being outright annoying. I've had local storage devices knock out drive shares, as an example of how utterly stupid the system is. We're literally dealing with a 40+ year old file device paradigm that only exists because MS seems completely unwilling to accept that Unix does it better.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Unix-like directories? by Waffle+Iron · 2017-02-22 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Historically the A: drive was the floppy drive (not really floppy, but don't get me started on that).
  When the "A:" terminology was invented, the disks and their containers really were floppy.
5. Re:Unix-like directories? by Aighearach · 2017-02-22 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  even WebTV users could manage a directory structure.
6. Re:Unix-like directories? by _merlin · 2017-02-22 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Before OSX, Macs did have one root per file filesystem, but users referred to them by name (roughly equivalent to volume labels), and internally the OS dynamically assigned them positive 16-bit IDs as they were mounted.
7. Re:Unix-like directories? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  How about / as the root, and then you can mount other drives wherever you want within that structure. I know the history and I don't need to google it. Drive letters are pointless and serve no purpose other than comforting people who are used to them. But thanks for assuming I'm stupid and trying to educate me.
8. Re:Unix-like directories? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  yes.. they were called "floppy" drives for a reason. ;)
9. Re:Unix-like directories? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 16:12 · Score: 0
  
  Are you suggesting volume labels are better? Or device ids?
10. Re:Unix-like directories? by ArmoredDragon · 2017-02-23 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Drive letters are by and large a hangover from CP/M and DOS, and could have been eliminated, or at least deprecated as early as Windows NT 3.5. Frankly, driver letter are completely ludicrous, to the point of being outright annoying. I've had local storage devices knock out drive shares, as an example of how utterly stupid the system is. We're literally dealing with a 40+ year old file device paradigm that only exists because MS seems completely unwilling to accept that Unix does it better.
  I suspect it would break a lot of shit built in to Windows, including Microsoft's failed mobile version. The problem is, a ton of developers (including Microsoft) doesn't use relative paths in many cases, so I suspect these things would never change just like how Microsoft skipped version 9 of Windows for compatibility reasons. That, and path separators should be a front slash instead of a back slash (though Powershell seems to interpret either one just fine) and CRLF should go away, both of which are CP/M holdovers as well and no longer serve a practical purpose, but again, compatibility.
  Every other OS in existence (including Android and iOS) no longer use drive letters, and that both makes it less confusing for ma and pa type users while being more powerful for power users.
11. Re:Unix-like directories? by ArmoredDragon · 2017-02-23 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, just mountpoints.
12. Re: Unix-like directories? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-26 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  You only need a single drive letter, m: for example and win2000+ lets you mount other things like m:\cdrom etc. Any drive can be mounted in any folder. Multiple mount points for the same device as well if you really need it
anyone tried this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:15 · Score: 0

Wow information is scarce on this one...
what are the requirement (OS?, lib dependancy?)
it says it "share" but how? they mention it is like a filesystem with email as permission, that is no way of sharing they still gonna need smb / nfs / sftp what ever
to do the actual transfer...
Email permission, for user in a lan? really?
1. Re:anyone tried this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  that is no way of sharing they still gonna need smb / nfs / sftp what ever
  to do the actual transfer...
  Or , you know, upspin, and they can just use the transport layer of the internet like everybody else.
Demonsaw is similar by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:19 · Score: 0

you can already do most of the stuff with Demonsaw www.demonsaw.com
Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:20 · Score: 0

From Github Upspin:
"Upspin is not an official Google product."
1. Re:Google? by DickBreath · 2017-02-22 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Translation: Google does not want to be accused by the RIAA / MPAA of supporting piracy. This allows the usefulness of globally sharing files, but the extremely plausible deniability of creating a piracy tool.
  
  As all good people know, any technology that allows files to be transferred over the internet can enable piracy and thus is evil. Any company that makes a technology which ends up being used for piracy must be shut down for the good of the global economy. Or terrorism. Or think of the children. (See: Grokster. Also see the attacks and rhetoric about bit torrent technology.)
  
  If the project is only easy for nerds to set up, and most people won't use it, this is a blessing in disguise! It would be like Usenet before the great poisoning of AOL. Or like the Web before the great unwashed hoardes, and f***ing advertisers. But like most things, some moron will come along and spoil it all by making it easy for Windows users and RIAA users. Just an opinion.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
in other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:25 · Score: 0

we didn't know what the hell to do with this. we hope someone out there can make something of it. we look forward to ripping off your hard work.
1. Re:in other words... by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2017-02-22 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well at least now they've open sourced it they can't wait till it's just on the cusp of popularity and then pull the plug
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
2. Re:in other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly! Just like they have been doing with Android.
3. Re:in other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  This is the only reason I won't even bother to look at the project. Google kills off everything now, regardless of popularity. I keep expecting to hear Gmail is going away next.
  I assume the practice started with the corporate profit driven shift away from 'try new things, make cool new stuff!" to "Be efficient, maximize profit!" but it's had the opposite effect - Google products are increasingly seen as something that shouldn't be adopted, they will be cancelled soon enough and you'll need to find a replacement anyway, so just start with the replacement.
4. Re:in other words... by MightyMartian · 2017-02-22 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the enterprise use of GMail, no, it's not going anywhere. But way to exaggerate. Welcome to the Newest Epoch of Humanity, where, if you can't make an argument well, you can at least make it hyperbolically, which is the same thing, right?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I guess that's why they call it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:39 · Score: 0

For example, it uses Unix-like directories and email addresses for permissions. While it may make sense to Google engineers, I am dubious that it will ever be widely used
Beta News indeed.
infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:39 · Score: 1

>While it may make sense to Google engineers, I am dubious that it will ever be widely used
Idiot. It's infrastructure, also known as engineer land. I'm sure it will make sense to plenty of non-google engineers.
1. Re:infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  There are non-google engineers and fanbois that have ever written a line of code in "go" ?
  Project has been effectively abandoned before even being supported as it is "not official". With "not official" meaning, what, exactly?
  Random unsupported code code thrown out in the world, written in a language neither used nor understood by most infrastructure engineers, and with no statement of any sort about its future?
  Yeah, right, go base some infrastructure on that ish.
2. Re:infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  WTF are you talking about? Go? You're not even replying to the correct quote. That passage was in reference to the directory structure, not whatever a particular service implementation was written in.
  Do you even know anything about how software works?
  Is this a regular habit of yours, going around trying to mislead people, or are you just so ignorant you don't even realize that's what you're doing?
3. Re:infrastructure by Sloppy · 2017-02-22 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure it will make sense to plenty of non-google engineers.
  Unless those non-Google engineers have already heard of ftp, scp, rsync, etc.
  The only real problem with sharing on home connections involves NAT, ISP ToS, etc: being findable and connectable. Rent a VPS and install OpenVPN on it, have your home fileserver connect to it, and it's solved.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
4. Re:infrastructure by imidan · 2017-02-22 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  The other problem with sharing things from my home connection is that my home upload speed is about 1 Mb/s. I do, in fact, run a VPS for this very reason.
5. Re:infrastructure by Aighearach · 2017-02-22 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  That does explain why it intended as a way to glue services together as data sources, instead of being a "file sharing project." Files could certainly be at both ends though.
written in Go by Gravis+Zero · 2017-02-22 01:46 · Score: 2

It seems interesting but admittedly I stopped looking into it when I learned that it is written in Go. The problem is less with the language and more about the fact that it will radically reduce the number of people that will work on it, especially long term. I don't know what the future is but I think Go will go the way of Ruby: a language du jour.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:written in Go by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  That never stopped popular Ruby apps from finding people to work on them. Same for any language. Especially since Go has some kind of cult following from Google itself.
  End users who are only using a service should never have to worry about what language it was written in.
2. Re:written in Go by squiggleslash · 2017-02-22 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think real developers care. As long as it's not written in LISP or some other language that's radically different from normal paradigms, and as long as the development environment is just a matter of checking some options in their favorite IDE, most programmers will be entirely happy.
  You grossly underestimate the ability of decent programmers to switch from language to language. What we care about is not whether a language is rarely used, but whether it can do what we need it to easily and quickly - and whether the libraries are easily googlelable of course.
  Go is a mainstream language, if a little basic. It's fine. That won't be the problem.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
3. Re:written in Go by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  From the overview documentation:
  
  Also, Upspin’s system architecture is unusual. It is at its core just a set of simple APIs that anyone may implement; [...] Although there are reference implementations that provide many of the features we feel are central to the system, we expect and hope that many other implementations will arise,
4. Re:written in Go by nine-times · 2017-02-22 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ruby may not be the hot thing anymore, but it's still a usable language, and there are still people using it. It's not as though the language became obsolete when the hype surrounding Rails died down.
5. Re:written in Go by Gravis+Zero · 2017-02-22 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  You grossly underestimate the ability of decent programmers to switch from language to language.
  I don't question the ability of programmers to pick up a languages, I question their will to do so. Unless they are paid to do so or interested in the language, they will have little reason to bother with a new project that's not written in their language of choice. I'm a programmer myself which is why I mentioned it.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
6. Re:written in Go by Gravis+Zero · 2017-02-22 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Ruby may not be the hot thing anymore, but it's still a usable language, and there are still people using it.
  The same can be said about COBOL and Fortran.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
7. Re:written in Go by gwolf · 2017-02-22 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Ruby is a beautifully designed language, a pleasure to code in. Even if I cannot stand the Rails Culture and its general attitude, learning Ruby changed me as a programmer. As long as I'm not the only one, Ruby will continue to be used.
8. Re:written in Go by squiggleslash · 2017-02-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Given Go is a mainstream language without anything unusual about it, and given that's pretty much well known, I'd say most programmers wouldn't consider it a barrier. The programmers that do? Probably the people who aren't going to contribute to an open source project in the first place.
  Why do I say this? Well, because you either love programming or you don't. If you do, then yes, open source is interesting to you, and no, you're not going to be put off by having to use a language you're only 90% familiar with (because, like I said, for non-LISP/Prolog/etc programming languages, you're already 90% familiar with them), you'll consider that a feature, not a bug.
  What might put a programmer off contributing to a project because of the language is if the language is unpleasant or a chore to use, not if the language is not something they've used before. But Go isn't that either.
  I'm a developer too. I've been in this profession for nearly 25 years, and been programming since I was 10 years old. If something can be modified and the source is available, I tend to play with it, regardless of the language. I really suspect most of us are the same way. Those who aren't... well, do you think they're really interested in open source?
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
9. Re:written in Go by Aighearach · 2017-02-22 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  The great thing about Ruby is that you can do all the work in C if you want, easily.
  If you want to make sure your library works well in Ruby, just write it in C. Problem solved.
10. Re:written in Go by Aighearach · 2017-02-22 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  It can matter depending on the use case. If a person wants better end user file sharing for IoT devices, then they might not be happy with anything other than C. Or, they might be happy to use python or Lua or Go or whatever. But probably not all at once, and they're probably not choosing based on the file interface.
  For use on a general purpose desktop computer, it seems pretty boring because there are so many existing solutions.
11. Re:written in Go by Aighearach · 2017-02-22 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  These days I can easily use Ruby in my COBOL. (true story)
12. Re: written in Go by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  "If you want to make sure your library works well in Ruby, just write it in C. Problem solved."
  Why not just use C then?
I'd be happy to replace NFS/SMB by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 02:11 · Score: 0

Interested to see how this goes.
Unix-like directories and Go whining? Stop it. by adosch · 2017-02-22 02:48 · Score: 2

An upfront caveat: I haven't spun up Upspin yet, but I did look at the code for about 15 minutes on Github. So I guess I haven't launched it.
I do have to merely shit on Brian Fagioli at BetaNews here: stick with objective reporter and keep your less-than-technical biased opinion out of the article, FFS. All that wanking about 'Unix-like directories' and written in 'Go' just proves your ignorance in the world of tech in general. My advice is, for starters, stop being a tech reporter and referring to yourself as 'submersed in technology' because you are clearly a posing douchey idiot. What world IS NOT built successfully on a 'Unix-like directory structure' and using a bleeding edge language like 'Go'?
Go is a fantastic language for any sort of platform-friendly deployment; I'm been using it almost exclusively for very system-heavy development that I need to port seamlessly between lots of UNIX platform variants. What's the problem with that?
Well Brian, to wrap your head around things you can relate to, better toss that MacBook you authored your article on (BSD-variant and Unix-like directory structure), stop watching Netflix (hosted on Linux and some distributed POSIX-friendly Unix-like filesystem), don't put anything on Dropbox anymore (hosted on Linux and some distributed POSIX-friendly Unix-like filesystem). Get my point? Stop whining. Just because it's over your head, doesn't mean it's not over anyone elses.
Wrong audience, and a risk. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 02:48 · Score: 0

"Unix like directories" (POSIX permissions and ACLs???) are nice, but no windows user is going to know how to set them up. They are much more likely to lock themselves out of their own data than to use it correctly. The keyword "Unix" in this should already be setting off warning bells. Windows users are not going to set up a linux box just to have a "secure" file sharing server. If you want to target home users, you needed to make the server run under Windows with a nice setup wizard to help them. (I see you already have a clippy replacement.)
Also email addresses. Yes I get it, an email address is the internet equivalent to a passport, but this is yet another thing that requires typing in some non-trivial length email address just to get access to something. (Assuming you haven't said "F it.", and started using a password manager for everything. Have fun when the malware starts targeting them btw.) I hope it supports using identity services on the network, to ease the blow a bit. (Once again, something home users don't have.)
Never mind that the MAFFIA is going to come for this one. (It's an EVIL file sharing system! Even worse, it's a secure filesharing system, backed by our worst enemy: EvilDoer! It must be stopped for great profits!)
If this does get any traction, I'd imagine it would be for sharing data over the public net by corporations that have the time to implement it, and the armies of lawyers needed to fend off the media industry. (And of course, for hosting a few linux isos. :p )
no one asked for this by bhcompy · 2017-02-22 04:35 · Score: 1

This reads like a business product, but is clearly targeting "home users". No home user asked for this. It's unnecessary. Google Drive, OneDrive, and Dropbox all provide near universal multiplatform support for file sharing and storage, and protocols like FTP, SFTP, DCC, BitTorrent, etc exist and are well supported for providing more direct transfer methods for home users.

Now, if you want a business product, sure, you could probably fit this in somewhere, the somewhere where people don't use network shares, VPNs, or have OneDrive already setup(so, non-Microsoft shops)
1. Re:no one asked for this by MightyMartian · 2017-02-22 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  I guess one could possibly integrate into some sort of home filesharing appliance, although my limited experience with this kind of hardware suggests they already have their own variations on this. Perhaps not quite the same level of security, but I fail to see why that would matter that much in a home setting. I guess someone could build an cloud app with it, but then again, there are already lots of those around.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:no one asked for this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Ah a universe where when someone asks for something they get it for free, next day. When will the idea that some people develop what what they want, and if we're lucky we can:
  1. read and learn from what they have done
  2. use all or part of what they have done, freely
  Would you like to share, like, anything you've done or even a constructive opinion. thought not. Stunned by you ingratitude.
Calling developers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 04:58 · Score: 1

This looks like a set of services which others can build on to provide consumer friendly applications, hiding the scary Unixy stuff. Maybe Google won't do it themselves because they're afraid of the copyright monsters.
Re:Unix-like directories and Go whining? Stop it. by TeknoHog · 2017-02-22 06:04 · Score: 1

Well Brian, to wrap your head around things you can relate to, better toss that MacBook you authored your article on (BSD-variant and Unix-like directory structure), stop watching Netflix (hosted on Linux and some distributed POSIX-friendly Unix-like filesystem), don't put anything on Dropbox anymore (hosted on Linux and some distributed POSIX-friendly Unix-like filesystem). Get my point? Stop whining. Just because it's over your head, doesn't mean it's not over anyone elses.
Also, try using the web with URLs like http:\\backslashdot.org\ to avoid the Unixy feel.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
vanity by qQ7eBMsfM5gs · 2017-02-22 07:30 · Score: 2

Another vanity product from Google. Yay!
Plan9? by krisbrowne42 · 2017-02-22 08:47 · Score: 4, Informative

This looks like it's an attempt to resurrect the 9P philosophies, bolting on a wider security framework.

A quick look at contributors confirms Rob Pike and Dave Presotto among them, who was among the key personalities at Bell Labs working on Plan9, all but confirming the lineage. As I recall, some of the same folks are behind Go.

What are the odds this has a different future than Plan9?
1. Re:Plan9? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-23 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Man, even that mascot looks strangely familiar...