The new 7,200rpm, enterprise drive also has what Craig described as a "humidity sensor" that will allow it to continue functioning in humid environments.
Agreed, it's a much better choice. I actually converted my entire image library to.webp, and I use Irfanview to view the images. The filesize savings were huge, with no visible reduction in quality.
It would help to know mor about your experiment. I can get quite big size improvements here by recompressing my camera's (Canon EOS) Jpeg files to... Jpeg! And with no visible quality difference either. They go from 6.7MB for the Canon file, to 3.1MB for quality 90 in imagemagick, 1.7MB for 75 and 1.4MB for 65. And ni your experiment the WebP quality scale may not exactly match the Jpeg one which makes comparisons even harder.
Instead, the only likely way to get that data is to retrieve it from DHCP logs of the WiFi router that granted the wireless connection.
According to another poster who claims to work for a large ISP these modems/routers are remotely accessible so the ISP/law enforcement don't not need to walk to your home to retrieve any information they need from it. However these devices don't have the memory required to store the DHCP logs you talk about. Any relevant information would be sent by the router to the ISP during the signon process and be kept there.
Add on top of that the fact that most cyber criminals would be smart enough to spoof their MAC,
Your scenario only makes sense if that criminal specifically wants to implicate you. Otherwise the whole "stealing Xfinity credentials and driving to be in range of your home Wifi" exercise would be pointless as for simple anonimity it would be much easier for him to pick any Internet cafe or even his home (no credentials to steal) and just use something like Tor. Now if someone wanted to implicate you by spoofing one of your MAC addresses, then using Xfinity credentials that don't belong to you would be stupid. So your scenario calls for a smart stupid criminal enemy of yours. Who are you to rate this scenario as 'low probability' rather than 'totally implausible'? Some kind of fantasy world super hero with an arch enemy?
and I am quite sure the policy of not using bridging mode on modems is fairly standard in the industry, it is not as if that is unusual.
You should qualify that with 'in the US'. In France Free has always let customers choose between bridge and router mode. Actually if you have fiber, bridge mode is the only way to get 1Gbps as otherwise the NATting, saturates the CPU around 400Mbps.
That IP address is still tied to the MAC address of the cable modem's owner
That's total nonsense. The cable modem's MAC address does not come into it as it does not leave the local cable network.
So where do you think law enforcement will go for answers?
Law enforcement will give an IP address and timestamp to the ISP and the ISP will give back the name and address of the corresponding user. Law enforcement will then go to that user for answers. Since you were not the one using that IP address at that time they have no reason to come and see you. If you think the ISP will bungle things up then you should be more worried about the millions of other customers of the non-hotspot type whose IP address they could confuse with yours.
So for once Comcast actually brings a new useful feature. What is the reaction? Legitimate criticisms like (it seems) the lack of share and share alike rule (1) or the lack of a partnership with Fon which would extend the community abroad.
No, instead we get everyone trotting their paranoïa about this newfangled functionality that they don't know anything about. It does not matter that this new functionality has been in use in manycountries without trouble for years. They worry about hotspot users accessing their private Wifi (non issue as the separate Wifi channel and routing keeps things separate), complain about spectrum pollution caused by the extra SSIDs (moot as the extra SSID is on the same channel), worry about the FBI breaking their door for copyright violations caused by other customers (hotspot access is tracked so the ISP will give the right name and address to the FBI), worry about data caps (again hotspot access is tracked separately), bandwidth usage (it's easy to limit the hotspot bandwidth usage and lower its priority).
Has the USA really become the land of the backward and tehnophobic people?
(1) The rule would be: if you disable this feature, that is if you don't share your bandwidth with other customers; then you cannot use the other customers' access points/bandwidth when you're away from home.
This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area [...] Disgusting waste of spectrum.
Same in Philadelphia for at least as long.
It makes no change to the spectrum usage. Instead of advertising one SSID the access point now advertises two, both on the same channel.
You blame the tech support for not knowing about this feature but it seems you've decided it was evil just based on preconceptions. I don't see how that's any better.
it does congest the band though.. if everyone in the area has comcast (likely for a given area), now we have 2x as many accesspoints to contend with.
Wrong. Just because an access point now handles two SSIDs does not mean it grew the extra hardware to handle two separate WiFi channels overnight. All access points have been able to handle 4 independent SSIDs for the past 10 years at least, but all four are always on the same frequency.
I'm sure law enforcement officers and a jury would easily understand these concepts and there won't be any people unfairly put on trial for an outsider abusing this feature.
As the parent said, the IP address that will come up is not the cable modem's owner so there's no reason why searching for it would turn up the name and address of the cable modem's owner. So your point is just moot. Or else explain why we have not seen thousands of such cases in Spain, France, Germany, Japan where such setups have been in place for years.
The thing to note with this setup isn't about money or customer bandwidth in my opinion - if you are in a congested 2.4ghz area, those additional used frequencies have the potential to cause issues within the already congested space.
Which additional 'used frequencies'? Do you really think that your neighbours would turn off WiFi if this feature was not there? Given how prevalent laptops, tablets and smartphones are that's just wishful thinking. Or maybe you think that because you see two SSIDs it means two WiFi frequencies are used? (hint: it does not)
Err it would be like you and your neighbour having separate connections with 1 router.
Its nothing like your neighbour having the same ISP. That has 2 routers, 2 physical connections back to the ISP, 2 routing tables and 2 public IPs.
I take it you've never heard of VPNs. You should look it up some time. Remove the encryption part which is useless in this case, and you've got everything you need. It's really not rocket science. Furthermore Fon has been doing that for years using the open-source OpenWRT as a base. So it's not even like it's some new unproven technology.
Why would you presume that? These modems typically have just one IP address, and I would presume that they NAT using the same one for the XFINITY wireless and for the home user.
Maybe because he knows what he's talking about and you don't?
As mentioned in the article the Xfinity users connect to the Xfinity SSID which is an open Wifi network while your Wifi network has a different SSID and is encrypted. So at the WiFi level the networks are completely separate. People seem to think this multiple Wifi network capability is new. It's not. Every access point of the past 10 years I've known about has supported 4 separate networks all along.
Then at the IP level, the way these community Wifi hotspots normally work is that when a guest connects to it he gets an address from a separate network range. Think of it as a VPN if that helps you. This ensures the guest's access is restricted to the official login server until he has registered. It also ensures the guest's IP traffic is separate from the user's local WiFi network. It also makes it possible to keep track of the guest's traffic for billing (if there's billing involved), and solves the copyright police issues.
So the easiest way would be to set up a fake access point with graphics stolen from Comcast's real site and then collect the usernames/passwords from people who are trying to connect to it.
How is that different from every other Wifi hotspot service that requires a subscription? What prevents you from setting up a fake AT&T, Boingo or T-Mobile hotspot and start collecting passwords? This sounds like an overblown fear.
That isn't how the copyright police work. They get an IP address and force Comcast to hand over the subscriber details associated with it.
Why would someone logging into this separate network get your IP address? This makes no sense and is absolutely not how it works with Free's FreeWifi community network for instance. So unless you have proof that Comcast does it the stupid way you're just reacting like someone who's just afraid of anything new. Down worry, I'm getting off your lawn now.
Rep: It goes up by $5-10 every year after a promotion ends.
Wow. I never cease to be amazed by the land of free competition.
My ISP, Free, billed me 30 € ($39) in 2003 for 1mbps and no data cap. Over ten years later they still bill me 30 € ! Of course a lot has changed, there's still no data cap but the bandwidth cap has been removed too, I get unlimited phone calls to France but also about a 100 other countries including the US and Canada, and they provide me with a box which is an Adsl modem, network bridge/router (my choice), 4 port 100Mbps switch, CPL access point, WiFi access point, access to 4 milion WiFi hotspots, and a lot more.
They did increase prices once though: for a while I had TV over ADSL access for the same price but the government increased the VAT on all such offers so they turned the TV part into an extra 2 € option so that the VAT increase only applies to those 2 €.
The irony is the acronym originally meant WINdows Emulator, so now it does again, huh.
Actually it's QEmu that does the emulation part to get x86 applications running on arm. See the schema at 30:00 in the Wine on Android video (with sound as soon as the FOSDEM guys get to it).
So, the right that is being infringed is 'perfom the work publicly'. A bar clearly falls under the definition of 'publicly', while it would be very difficult to claim that an interrogation room falls under that definition.
My understanding is that the music is played in the prisoners cells, not in the 'interrogation room'. Also from the few images that leaked from Gitmo these cells did not seem to be soundproofed and it did not look like there was one speaker per cell. Finally it's not just in bars that one has to pay to play music, but at the barber shop too, so that sets a bar of about 5 people for 'public performance'. So all that considered I don't doubt this could be considered a public performance.
However my understanding is that the main draw of Gitmo is that it's not on US soil so that US laws, on the prohibition of torture for instance, supposedly don't apply. That would also make it hard to apply US laws to collect royalties on public performance. Fortunately for Skinny Puppy the US Supreme court seems to have found otherwise so maybe they stand a chance.
Actually I find this set of tools to be particularly vulnerable to being corrupted by a minority... of people. So they deserve a good share of the blame.
Who, the people corrupting the tools? You're not doing a very good job of countering my premise if you're actually trying to say the tools themselves are to blame, you know.
Riiiight. Next you're going to say that a bank that did not have a vault, locks on its front door or any other form of security should be held blameless if it gets burglarised. And you'll put the blame on everyone else, including those who did not have anything to do with the theft, just like you're doing here. Nice logic.
Communism, just like capitalism and socialism, looks like a really good idea on paper. You said it yourself: the problem is with people, specifically small groups of people accumulating all the power. That makes people bad, not the tools themselves.
Actually I find this set of tools to be particularly vulnerable to being corrupted by a minority. So they deserve a good share of the blame.
Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.
A bible sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.
* because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.
I don't think that's a particularly good argument. That or you'd also have to agree that:
Communism is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.
Das Kapital sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.
* because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.
Religion, communism, capitalism, all three tend to lead to the accumulation of power in a few hands. And one thing's for sure: power corrupts.
Sigh. Virtual Machine don't come with an operating system preinstalled.
That doesn't mean you have to buy a Windows or Apple computer though, as you falsely stated. You have clearly only just discovered what a VM is
Eh. I've been using VMs since 2001, currently have 69 VMs on my computer, 8 of which are various versions of Windows and I also manage 8 others on a server. Such a newbie!
Which is obviously rubbish, you either have to buy a Windows license or use somebody's Windows or Apple machine
Yay, we agree, mostly! See, I never said one had to buy a Windows computer, though I admit my formulation was ambiguous and poorly worded. Sorry for that. But compare "buying Windows or an Apple computer" (what I wrote, even added a comma the second time around) and "buying a Windows or Apple computer" (what you understood). But I do like your suggestion so let me rephrase that to be unambiguous: "Running iTunes requires buying either a Windows license or an Apple computer".
Where we still disagree is on the whole borrowing or renting someone else's computer as a practical, reasonnable for the masses way to run iTunes.
No, you can buy a Windows license and use a VM, but in the real world just about everybody has access to a system with Windows or OSX
Meaning in practical terms VMs are even less of a solution.
My statement didn't preclude client-side encryption, in fact if you read the passage I quoted I explicitly said you would encrypt it anyway.
You said "you would encrypt it anyway" which as stated implies a manual operation, while client-side encryption is transparent. Furthermore you did say "if you want "cloud storage" you can't guarantee that data will always be private no matter who you host it with" which is wrong: if your cloud storage solution performs client-side encryption then that's a garantee your data will be private.
I didn't say you have to compete on features, you need to compete in all areas to build products that people actually want to use, or you can just continue the defeatist attitude and lament your view that even if you did build something decent nobody would use it...maybe that's why those products suck so much.
You did not say they "have to" but you said they "need to", pretty much the same, and implied that would be sufficient (and that they are idiots and somehow not doing so (I cannot really blame you if you sometimes get that feeling)). All I'm doing is pointing the harsh reality which is not the same as being a defeatist (I would not be working on Wine if I were).
Slashdot Mirror
NSA's message:
Beware: we're doing it to them so they could be doing it to us.
Of course they could not go public with part one to they only publicized part two.
The new 7,200rpm, enterprise drive also has what Craig described as a "humidity sensor" that will allow it to continue functioning in humid environments.
Finally a drive that will work in the cloud!
There's a lot of GPL software in Ubuntu, starting with the Linux kernel. Does Tesla distribute the source code to Model S owners that ask?
Agreed, it's a much better choice. I actually converted my entire image library to .webp, and I use Irfanview to view the images. The filesize savings were huge, with no visible reduction in quality.
Some examples: 4.5 MB JPG -> 109 KB webp 3.66 MB JPG -> 272 KB webp 3.36 MB JPG -> 371 KB webp
It would help to know mor about your experiment. I can get quite big size improvements here by recompressing my camera's (Canon EOS) Jpeg files to... Jpeg! And with no visible quality difference either. They go from 6.7MB for the Canon file, to 3.1MB for quality 90 in imagemagick, 1.7MB for 75 and 1.4MB for 65. And ni your experiment the WebP quality scale may not exactly match the Jpeg one which makes comparisons even harder.
Instead, the only likely way to get that data is to retrieve it from DHCP logs of the WiFi router that granted the wireless connection.
According to another poster who claims to work for a large ISP these modems/routers are remotely accessible so the ISP/law enforcement don't not need to walk to your home to retrieve any information they need from it. However these devices don't have the memory required to store the DHCP logs you talk about. Any relevant information would be sent by the router to the ISP during the signon process and be kept there.
Add on top of that the fact that most cyber criminals would be smart enough to spoof their MAC,
Your scenario only makes sense if that criminal specifically wants to implicate you. Otherwise the whole "stealing Xfinity credentials and driving to be in range of your home Wifi" exercise would be pointless as for simple anonimity it would be much easier for him to pick any Internet cafe or even his home (no credentials to steal) and just use something like Tor. Now if someone wanted to implicate you by spoofing one of your MAC addresses, then using Xfinity credentials that don't belong to you would be stupid. So your scenario calls for a smart stupid criminal enemy of yours. Who are you to rate this scenario as 'low probability' rather than 'totally implausible'? Some kind of fantasy world super hero with an arch enemy?
and I am quite sure the policy of not using bridging mode on modems is fairly standard in the industry, it is not as if that is unusual.
You should qualify that with 'in the US'. In France Free has always let customers choose between bridge and router mode. Actually if you have fiber, bridge mode is the only way to get 1Gbps as otherwise the NATting, saturates the CPU around 400Mbps.
That IP address is still tied to the MAC address of the cable modem's owner
That's total nonsense. The cable modem's MAC address does not come into it as it does not leave the local cable network.
So where do you think law enforcement will go for answers?
Law enforcement will give an IP address and timestamp to the ISP and the ISP will give back the name and address of the corresponding user. Law enforcement will then go to that user for answers. Since you were not the one using that IP address at that time they have no reason to come and see you. If you think the ISP will bungle things up then you should be more worried about the millions of other customers of the non-hotspot type whose IP address they could confuse with yours.
So for once Comcast actually brings a new useful feature. What is the reaction? Legitimate criticisms like (it seems) the lack of share and share alike rule (1) or the lack of a partnership with Fon which would extend the community abroad.
No, instead we get everyone trotting their paranoïa about this newfangled functionality that they don't know anything about. It does not matter that this new functionality has been in use in many countries without trouble for years. They worry about hotspot users accessing their private Wifi (non issue as the separate Wifi channel and routing keeps things separate), complain about spectrum pollution caused by the extra SSIDs (moot as the extra SSID is on the same channel), worry about the FBI breaking their door for copyright violations caused by other customers (hotspot access is tracked so the ISP will give the right name and address to the FBI), worry about data caps (again hotspot access is tracked separately), bandwidth usage (it's easy to limit the hotspot bandwidth usage and lower its priority).
Has the USA really become the land of the backward and tehnophobic people?
(1) The rule would be: if you disable this feature, that is if you don't share your bandwidth with other customers; then you cannot use the other customers' access points/bandwidth when you're away from home.
This shit is already polluting the SF Bay Area [...] Disgusting waste of spectrum.
Same in Philadelphia for at least as long.
It makes no change to the spectrum usage. Instead of advertising one SSID the access point now advertises two, both on the same channel.
You blame the tech support for not knowing about this feature but it seems you've decided it was evil just based on preconceptions. I don't see how that's any better.
it does congest the band though.. if everyone in the area has comcast (likely for a given area), now we have 2x as many accesspoints to contend with.
Wrong. Just because an access point now handles two SSIDs does not mean it grew the extra hardware to handle two separate WiFi channels overnight. All access points have been able to handle 4 independent SSIDs for the past 10 years at least, but all four are always on the same frequency.
I'm sure law enforcement officers and a jury would easily understand these concepts and there won't be any people unfairly put on trial for an outsider abusing this feature.
As the parent said, the IP address that will come up is not the cable modem's owner so there's no reason why searching for it would turn up the name and address of the cable modem's owner. So your point is just moot. Or else explain why we have not seen thousands of such cases in Spain, France, Germany, Japan where such setups have been in place for years.
The thing to note with this setup isn't about money or customer bandwidth in my opinion - if you are in a congested 2.4ghz area, those additional used frequencies have the potential to cause issues within the already congested space.
Which additional 'used frequencies'? Do you really think that your neighbours would turn off WiFi if this feature was not there? Given how prevalent laptops, tablets and smartphones are that's just wishful thinking. Or maybe you think that because you see two SSIDs it means two WiFi frequencies are used? (hint: it does not)
Err it would be like you and your neighbour having separate connections with 1 router. Its nothing like your neighbour having the same ISP. That has 2 routers, 2 physical connections back to the ISP, 2 routing tables and 2 public IPs.
I take it you've never heard of VPNs. You should look it up some time. Remove the encryption part which is useless in this case, and you've got everything you need. It's really not rocket science. Furthermore Fon has been doing that for years using the open-source OpenWRT as a base. So it's not even like it's some new unproven technology.
Why would you presume that? These modems typically have just one IP address, and I would presume that they NAT using the same one for the XFINITY wireless and for the home user.
Maybe because he knows what he's talking about and you don't?
As mentioned in the article the Xfinity users connect to the Xfinity SSID which is an open Wifi network while your Wifi network has a different SSID and is encrypted. So at the WiFi level the networks are completely separate. People seem to think this multiple Wifi network capability is new. It's not. Every access point of the past 10 years I've known about has supported 4 separate networks all along.
Then at the IP level, the way these community Wifi hotspots normally work is that when a guest connects to it he gets an address from a separate network range. Think of it as a VPN if that helps you. This ensures the guest's access is restricted to the official login server until he has registered. It also ensures the guest's IP traffic is separate from the user's local WiFi network. It also makes it possible to keep track of the guest's traffic for billing (if there's billing involved), and solves the copyright police issues.
So the easiest way would be to set up a fake access point with graphics stolen from Comcast's real site and then collect the usernames/passwords from people who are trying to connect to it.
How is that different from every other Wifi hotspot service that requires a subscription? What prevents you from setting up a fake AT&T, Boingo or T-Mobile hotspot and start collecting passwords? This sounds like an overblown fear.
That isn't how the copyright police work. They get an IP address and force Comcast to hand over the subscriber details associated with it.
Why would someone logging into this separate network get your IP address? This makes no sense and is absolutely not how it works with Free's FreeWifi community network for instance. So unless you have proof that Comcast does it the stupid way you're just reacting like someone who's just afraid of anything new. Down worry, I'm getting off your lawn now.
Rep: It goes up by $5-10 every year after a promotion ends.
Wow. I never cease to be amazed by the land of free competition.
My ISP, Free, billed me 30 € ($39) in 2003 for 1mbps and no data cap. Over ten years later they still bill me 30 € ! Of course a lot has changed, there's still no data cap but the bandwidth cap has been removed too, I get unlimited phone calls to France but also about a 100 other countries including the US and Canada, and they provide me with a box which is an Adsl modem, network bridge/router (my choice), 4 port 100Mbps switch, CPL access point, WiFi access point, access to 4 milion WiFi hotspots, and a lot more.
They did increase prices once though: for a while I had TV over ADSL access for the same price but the government increased the VAT on all such offers so they turned the TV part into an extra 2 € option so that the VAT increase only applies to those 2 €.
The irony is the acronym originally meant WINdows Emulator, so now it does again, huh.
Actually it's QEmu that does the emulation part to get x86 applications running on arm. See the schema at 30:00 in the Wine on Android video (with sound as soon as the FOSDEM guys get to it).
So, the right that is being infringed is 'perfom the work publicly'. A bar clearly falls under the definition of 'publicly', while it would be very difficult to claim that an interrogation room falls under that definition.
My understanding is that the music is played in the prisoners cells, not in the 'interrogation room'. Also from the few images that leaked from Gitmo these cells did not seem to be soundproofed and it did not look like there was one speaker per cell. Finally it's not just in bars that one has to pay to play music, but at the barber shop too, so that sets a bar of about 5 people for 'public performance'. So all that considered I don't doubt this could be considered a public performance.
However my understanding is that the main draw of Gitmo is that it's not on US soil so that US laws, on the prohibition of torture for instance, supposedly don't apply. That would also make it hard to apply US laws to collect royalties on public performance. Fortunately for Skinny Puppy the US Supreme court seems to have found otherwise so maybe they stand a chance.
Taxation without representation.
Just like resident aliens then.
Actually I find this set of tools to be particularly vulnerable to being corrupted by a minority ... of people. So they deserve a good share of the blame.
Who, the people corrupting the tools? You're not doing a very good job of countering my premise if you're actually trying to say the tools themselves are to blame, you know.
Riiiight. Next you're going to say that a bank that did not have a vault, locks on its front door or any other form of security should be held blameless if it gets burglarised. And you'll put the blame on everyone else, including those who did not have anything to do with the theft, just like you're doing here. Nice logic.
Communism, just like capitalism and socialism, looks like a really good idea on paper. You said it yourself: the problem is with people, specifically small groups of people accumulating all the power. That makes people bad, not the tools themselves.
Actually I find this set of tools to be particularly vulnerable to being corrupted by a minority. So they deserve a good share of the blame.
Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.
A bible sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.
* because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.
I don't think that's a particularly good argument. That or you'd also have to agree that:
Communism is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.
Das Kapital sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.
* because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.
Religion, communism, capitalism, all three tend to lead to the accumulation of power in a few hands. And one thing's for sure: power corrupts.
Sigh. Virtual Machine don't come with an operating system preinstalled.
That doesn't mean you have to buy a Windows or Apple computer though, as you falsely stated. You have clearly only just discovered what a VM is
Eh. I've been using VMs since 2001, currently have 69 VMs on my computer, 8 of which are various versions of Windows and I also manage 8 others on a server. Such a newbie!
Which is obviously rubbish, you either have to buy a Windows license or use somebody's Windows or Apple machine
Yay, we agree, mostly! See, I never said one had to buy a Windows computer, though I admit my formulation was ambiguous and poorly worded. Sorry for that. But compare "buying Windows or an Apple computer" (what I wrote, even added a comma the second time around) and "buying a Windows or Apple computer" (what you understood). But I do like your suggestion so let me rephrase that to be unambiguous: "Running iTunes requires buying either a Windows license or an Apple computer".
Where we still disagree is on the whole borrowing or renting someone else's computer as a practical, reasonnable for the masses way to run iTunes.
No, you can buy a Windows license and use a VM, but in the real world just about everybody has access to a system with Windows or OSX
Meaning in practical terms VMs are even less of a solution.
My statement didn't preclude client-side encryption, in fact if you read the passage I quoted I explicitly said you would encrypt it anyway.
You said "you would encrypt it anyway" which as stated implies a manual operation, while client-side encryption is transparent. Furthermore you did say "if you want "cloud storage" you can't guarantee that data will always be private no matter who you host it with" which is wrong: if your cloud storage solution performs client-side encryption then that's a garantee your data will be private.
I didn't say you have to compete on features, you need to compete in all areas to build products that people actually want to use, or you can just continue the defeatist attitude and lament your view that even if you did build something decent nobody would use it...maybe that's why those products suck so much.
You did not say they "have to" but you said they "need to", pretty much the same, and implied that would be sufficient (and that they are idiots and somehow not doing so (I cannot really blame you if you sometimes get that feeling)). All I'm doing is pointing the harsh reality which is not the same as being a defeatist (I would not be working on Wine if I were).