Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Drive – a tiny program to pull or push Google Drive files

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Show HN: Drive – a tiny program to pull or push Google Drive files

#13

Post by unavoidable »

userbinator wrote: post #12

If you have less than 1GB memory on your device see Precautions for building on devices with less than 1GB RAM Combined with "a tiny program" in the title, this makes me curious as to what exactly needs so much memory.

That comment was about compiling from source, which requires much more memory than the actual program.

Re: Show HN: Drive – a tiny program to pull or push Google Drive files

#14

Post by odeke-em »

userbinator wrote: post #12

If you have less than 1GB memory on your device see Precautions for building on devices with less than 1GB RAM Combined with "a tiny program" in the title, this makes me curious as to what exactly needs so much memory.

So before the usage of golang.org/x/text/collate this was causing this problem. However, I got rid of it with PR https://github.com/odeke-em/drive/pull/331. That comment is a legacy one.

Re: Show HN: Drive – a tiny program to pull or push Google Drive files

#15

Post by odeke-em »

jpatokal wrote: post #6
jpatokal wrote: post #5

If you're running into this: google.golang.org/cloud/compute/metadata/metadata.go:54: unknown net.Dialer field 'KeepAlive' in struct literal then it's supposed to be fixed per https://github.com/odeke-em/drive/issues/223 , but it's not working for me and neither do the workarounds. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Seems to be an issue with Go 1.2.2, upgrading to 1.4.2 fixes it.

Yap, good catch.

Re: Show HN: Drive – a tiny program to pull or push Google Drive files

#17

Post by odeke-em »

IshKebab wrote: post #3

Nice, but what we really want is a way to do it automatically, like Dropbox. I know Burcu Dogan was against automatic sync because it isn't 100% reliable in every case, but frankly she's wrong. That isn't a sufficiently bad con not to use it compared to the pro - it's automatic.

Personally, I prefer manual sync like Burcu does. You have way better control with manual sync, imagine you were editing a video or had source code in your drive that was shared, any saves would toggle syncing. Also you could potentially clog up your bandwidth with auto syncing. Plus I can get to review a manifest of files before letting them get pushed. Lots of other features with manual sync such as `cat pipe | drive push --piped streamedContent` or `drive push -m ~/contentNotInDrive .` and many others. These would be very difficult to get in with auto-sync.
Post reply on HN