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

Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

locker.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 219 posts

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#111

Post by vachina »

rkagerer wrote: post #49

Why would I want to replace my reliance on them with reliance on Amazon or another cloud provider? I'd rather control the whole stack, even if it means deploying my own hardware to one or more redundant, off-site locations. Edit: Are there robust, open source, self-hosted, S3-compliant engines out there reliable and performant enough to be the backend for this?

There’s local file system as an option for storage provider.

But then you still need a bazillion dependencies and a db just to manage files already on your filesystem.

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#112

Post by Forgeties79 »

dewey wrote: post #87
TeMPOraL wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that there's app for mobile and desktop operating systems which deeply integrates it in the OS so it's just like a local folder that's magically synced Which mobile OS would that be? The big reason I stopped being excited about cloud storage is that on mobile, from what I can tell, none of the major providers care about "folder that syncs" experience. You only get an app that lets you view remote storage. The o…

I'm using iOS and macOS. On macOS I have the folder that syncs experience (I'm using Synology Drive, but Dropbox works the same way), on iOS I have the "browse remote files" experience but I can pin files I always want to keep available which is what I want.

My only major complaint with gdrive on Mac (besides Apple and Google but I have to deal with them for work) is that you can’t set the storage folder to an external location like with windows. I don’t want to be constantly loading/unloading media on my internal storage, but I don’t have a choice without janky work arounds. It’s a very frustratingly “Apple” thing to do.

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#113

Post by whartung »

pprotas wrote: post #70
axelthegerman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works so great on new devices like smartphones. Except not. And so easy to set up on a home computer. Except it's not always on and doesn't come with backups. I'm not saying S3 is where it's at but might need a bit more than just Samba. Or maybe you don't but people who need Dropbox do.

iOS has native support for SMB in the Files app Turning on SMB is usually just a click of a button, even macOS supports it Any user technical enough to be able to set up an S3 bucket, Syncthing, Nextcloud or this "Locker" tool from OP can also set up an SMB share I was responding to the above thread, where sharing files on an offline network is being discussed. Backups were not mentioned as a requirement.

Yea, boy, you’d like to think.

But sharing a folder on my Mac with my wife’s MacBook has been a Google diving, arcane command line headache.

I would have thought sharing the folder, and marking ‘everyone’ for all the read/write modes would be enough. But, no.

I guess with APFS it’s a lot more fiddly. It’s not intuitive, and not in the info panel.

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#115

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

ks2048 wrote: post #36

I pay Dropbox $120 per year for 2TB. No transfer fees, solid Apps, macOS integration, free APIs. How much on S3? A LOT more.

Fwiw, 2TB on R2 is $30/month, Wasabi is $14/month, both support S3, neither have egress fees. Backblaze is $10/month for 2TB but has an egress quota after which there are fees, so Backblaze is same cost as Dropbox, minus the egress quota. If Dropbox works for you there's no reason to switch.

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#116

Post by okkdev »

evandrofisico wrote: post #80
rkagerer wrote: post #49

Why would I want to replace my reliance on them with reliance on Amazon or another cloud provider? I'd rather control the whole stack, even if it means deploying my own hardware to one or more redundant, off-site locations. Edit: Are there robust, open source, self-hosted, S3-compliant engines out there reliable and performant enough to be the backend for this?

take a look at https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/

and https://rustfs.com/

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#117

Post by layer8 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #92
dewey wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using iOS and macOS. On macOS I have the folder that syncs experience (I'm using Synology Drive, but Dropbox works the same way), on iOS I have the "browse remote files" experience but I can pin files I always want to keep available which is what I want.

Right. It's similar to Windows and Android experience. Thing is, for the latter, I don't want to "pin files I always want to keep available" - I want them to actually exist as files in the shared storage, so other apps can operate on them as if on regular files. (Unfortunately, both mobile platforms themselves are actively fighting this approach, and instead encourage apps to keep data in private databases and never…

The problem on mobile is more that the other apps don’t get access to the general file system, and/or prefer to import the files anyway.

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#118

Post by charles_f »

I used to be excited by these kind of tools, I love to self-host stuff. When I clicked on the link, I had this hesitation, suspecting "maybe it's LLM generated". And sure enough, coming back to HN, description says it is.

File sync can't be that hard! Enters the first 3 way conflict and everything explodes.

Dont misunderstand me, this is a cool idea. But if your rotation time between ideating a project and pushing it to HN is a week, you don't understand the problem space. You didn't go through the pain of realizing its complexity. You didn't test things properly with your own data, lost a bunch of it and fixed the issues, or realized it was a bad idea and abandoned it. I have no guarantee you'll still be there in a month to patch any vulnerabilities.

Not that any open-source project had these kind of guarantees until now, but the effort invested in them to get to that point was at least a secondary indicator about who built it, their dedication, and their understanding of the space.

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#119

Post by Tade0 »

giarc wrote: post #58
ryangittins wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah, wow. A post with an ID under 10k. Meanwhile this one is over 47M. I didn't realize I've been reading HN nearly its whole existence. For all my complaining about what's happened to the internet since those days, HN has managed to stay high quality without compromising.

I think a big reason is you are not notified when someone replies to your comment. It reduces heated back and forth arguments.

Also submissions with more comments than upvotes are looked into, if not outright automatically flagged.

Re: Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

#120

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

rkagerer wrote: post #49

Why would I want to replace my reliance on them with reliance on Amazon or another cloud provider? I'd rather control the whole stack, even if it means deploying my own hardware to one or more redundant, off-site locations. Edit: Are there robust, open source, self-hosted, S3-compliant engines out there reliable and performant enough to be the backend for this?

The old open source version of Minio still works
Post reply on HN