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

10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

abevoelker.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 227 posts

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#201

Post by mayankkaizen »

notriddle wrote: post #187
LoveGracePeace wrote: post #174

GPL should add a clause: "If you're a large enterprise making money off of Linux and provide services/products to Windows and Mac users but not the exact same to Linux users; your enterprise is no longer authorized to use or run Linux in any capacity.".

The FSF will almost certainly never do that, and even if they did, Linux isn't licensed under "GPLv2 or Later." It's just under GPLv2, probably forever. Linux could change it if every single copyright holder consented, but that's even less likely than the FSF adding a field of endeavor restriction to the GPL. Google owns partial copyright to Linux. Other copyright holders are gone, and nobody knows who the heir is.

I am clueless about these licensing matters. How does Google own partial copyright to Linux? I thought Linux is something independent.

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#202

Post by dTal »

wlesieutre wrote: post #147
GuB-42 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a transition from a file-centric to an app-centric model, that I mostly disapprove of, but that's what is happening. Before, you had files stored in a filesystem, you picked the file and opened it with the app. On Windows, you double-click on the file, on a command line, you type "app filename". Now the trend is to first open the app and then use the app to fetch your data, that data is entirely managed by t…

On the flip side, Steve Jobs tried to make this happen for the iPad and Apple eventually gave up and built the Files app because they were trying to make it into a system you could do actual work. "All data belongs to a single app" was at odds with most work tasks other than checking your email, and sending copies of data back and forth between apps with share sheets is alright if you only have to do it once, but it…

The people pushing to have all desktop programs isolated from each other by default in the name of "security" are making the same mistake.

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#203

Post by maccard »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #132
maccard wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

S3 is not a filesystem replacement unfortunately.

Why not? It's a cloud service that stores files, can pretend to have directories, and for which there exist multiple utilities to mount the thing as a local file system. What's the shortcoming?

As someone else pointed out, it's object storage not block storage meaning things like partial reads and partial writes don't work. That may not be a problem for you, but it _is_ a problem for me (particularly when dealing with remote data).

> for which there exist multiple utilities to mount the thing as a local file system

Which all have their own sets of intricacies. The most obvious one being listing a directory is either impossible, costly, or as slow as the heat death of the universe. Other (far riskier) ones (from s3fs-fuse, which I have the most experience with[0] ) are the lack of guarantees about atomicity and concurrent access.

[0] https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#204

Post by taspeotis »

LilBytes wrote: post #200
taspeotis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, hence the wondering. They keep improving the protocol and I am hopeful that one day I might try it and be pleasantly surprised. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/file...

I tried it a little less than 2 months ago across a suite of services, Azure, self hosted, AWS EC2 instances, and all of these same options again with WireGuard over the top (well, with Tailscale in this instance). Tragically it was still trash.

Thank you for your sacrifice

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#205

Post by srvmshr »

I have been using InSync for Google Drive for the past 4 years. Been pretty happy with the performance. There is only one catch with their personal license: you can only use it for the account you bought it for. Changing account implies buying another license. You can't sign on more than one Google account as your main account - although they have some child account configuration & you could use it on as many computers you want.

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#206

Post by my123 »

mayankkaizen wrote: post #201
notriddle wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FSF will almost certainly never do that, and even if they did, Linux isn't licensed under "GPLv2 or Later." It's just under GPLv2, probably forever. Linux could change it if every single copyright holder consented, but that's even less likely than the FSF adding a field of endeavor restriction to the GPL. Google owns partial copyright to Linux. Other copyright holders are gone, and nobody knows who the heir is.

I am clueless about these licensing matters. How does Google own partial copyright to Linux? I thought Linux is something independent.

Each contributor to Linux retains the copyright to their contributions.

Google is a pretty big Linux contributor.

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#207

Post by kevincox »

titzer wrote: post #29

Just give us a web filesystem already. Stop with these shitty infantilized GUIs with no hierarchical organization and an overreliance on search to find things. I have literally hundreds of thousands to millions of files on my local machines and have no trouble remembering where I put things. Drive can't seem to scale past a few dozen before it's confusing, useless, and apparently lossy. Remember when web servers woul…

They should take inspiration from nginx and Apache directory listings. Doesn't take 4s to load and uses actual links so you can open in new window or copy the link.

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#208

Post by tablespoon »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #182
tablespoon wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Killing a chat product that has always been a net loss for the company might not appear to be a failure. Doing that once, yeah, doing that over and over, no so much. At this point the smartest thing to do it just kill them all and definitively say: "No more, this is the end of Google chat apps."

> Doing that once, yeah, doing that over and over, no so much. What do you mean? It's always good move to kill a product that loses money for the company. Why do they start so many new products that are losers? That's a different question. Possibly the incentives for starting new products are poorly calibrated, which is the common narrative. But possibly they aren't and they are quite happy to make a mountain of shit…

>> Doing that once, yeah, doing that over and over, no so much.

> What do you mean? It's always good move to kill a product that loses money for the company.

Look at the Ars Technica article I was responding to. Google has failed at chat apps repeatedly for a long time, to the point where it's an embarrassment AND they've created a self-reinforcing vicious cycle of failure. The smart decision for users is to avoid any Google chat app like the plague, because it will inevitably be killed, which means those apps will also fail for lack of users.

A business doesn't have infinite tries to get something right. Eventually they burn up all their credibility. They should kill them all, and stop developing new ones, completely exiting the space.

Re: 10 years since Google said to “hang tight” about Linux support for Google Drive

#209

Post by pmarreck »

snvzz wrote: post #68
titzer wrote: post #29

Just give us a web filesystem already. Stop with these shitty infantilized GUIs with no hierarchical organization and an overreliance on search to find things. I have literally hundreds of thousands to millions of files on my local machines and have no trouble remembering where I put things. Drive can't seem to scale past a few dozen before it's confusing, useless, and apparently lossy. Remember when web servers woul…

Consider paying for S3.

Why pay when https://min.io/ exists?
Post reply on HN