111–120 of 123 posts
This sounds very similar to Microsoft's LiveMesh. Besides that fact that it's not Microsoft, what are the big differences in functionality or usability (or is it totally different)?
Also, LiveMesh looks and feels a bit alien GUI-wise, while AeroFS feels more native (although it's not quite there yet either, but gradually improving).
AeroFS isn't as refined as Dropbox, but the flexibility of cross-computer sync makes it pretty ideal for large media storage. I have almost 200GB of photos, and dropbox really wasn't an option for that. They release updates to the product every few weeks, so it's getting better. Gripes: 1- It's a lot chattier than dropbox. This could be a tradeoff for being a distributed protocol, but it's something that dropbox seem…
Can someone send me an invite please? I'd like to try this... casey.marshall@gmail.com
bostonvaulter[ät]gmail.com
I was using this for awhile but the sync algorithm is retarded. It spent all of its time syncing gigs of meta data and saturating my upload rate. Also be prepared to make room for the 100mb+ process as it does not seem to care about memory efficiency. I guess I'm still stuck with rsync and cronjobs until they work out the issues.
Really hope they work it out one day, because I'd love the functionality for keeping dirs in sync w/o having to pay for the cloud portion; but right now its primary use case for me (dealing with dirs larger than I want stored in dropbox) appears to also be its Achilles' heel.
I see it more suitable for techies than normals. For instance I can't imagine explaining to my wife or sister that their files won't sync and they can lose something if the other machine went offline but when it came back they have already switched off the first one :(
It's not as fire-and-forget as Dropbox so I don't see everyone using AeroFS, but there are quite a bunch of non-techies that can get it and could be very interested in such features.
Can someone send me an invite please? I'd like to try this... casey.marshall@gmail.com
I think I missed something... basically it uses P2P instead of a central server that copies my data but doesn't that mean I am sending possibly private data all around the internet to other aero users, though encrypted? Then isn't that the same situation we had in the DEFCON hacks: what keeps people from recording all your traffic and one fine day when the encryption is not secure anymore, they can simply decrypt it?
If you want to share your data over the internet you kinda need to send it out at one time or another. This traffic can always be intercepted and stored for later use. What is your point exactly?
I was talking about the part where people use Aero for their personal backups and syncing their own machines, not about sharing with other people.
With something like dropbox traffic goes between me and their servers and whoever is listening in between there.
The way I understand it, with Aero it will go through P2P even if I am just syncing my own machines since both are likely to be behind some sort of NAT or firewall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem I have with centralized servers in the first place is that I don't trust my data with them. If it was decentralized and open source, that's an app I could see myself using. Closed source = no good for privacy.
I think that AeroFS only uses central servers to identify the IP addresses of participating hosts and negotiate a connection. AFAIK, the actual data flows directly peer to peer. So, even a malicious employee or government snoop would only know the IP of swarm participants. Presumably you'd still need to intercept and crack any encryption between nodes.
It's not just the servers I have to trust, but the software. AeroFS gets rid of the servers, butt still need to trust the software.
Hey. What does this give me that I can't get from just having a mercurial repository which has a bunch of clones and each clone pushes to the others when something changes?
Echoing joelthelion, I wonder: is this just a service selling you access to Tahoe-LAFS? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to just install Tahoe yourself instead of paying them and worrying about whether their version of the code is less secure than the publicly audited version? (Actually, even if not. Why would you pay someone to have access to your own files on your own computer?)
No. Tahoe-LAFS is very different (access is only over HTTP for a start)
Why would you pay someone to have access to your own files on your own computer?
Ignoring the whole free-to-use-on-your-computer-but-we'll-sell-you-cloud-backup model, there is always the old fashioned you-pay-us-for-the-software model.