81–90 of 209 posts
This is so bad, I deployed my sites using Ubuntu One. However I'm very grateful they decided to opensource it, at least I have a hope to keep implementing it.
Silver lining in the cloud (sorry could not resist) why don't you optimise for site deployment and then resell the service?
Surely I will like to open source it, is just a 17Kb script that keeps listening and add a permission layer to create directories
"Our strategic priority for Ubuntu is making the best converged operating system for phones, tablets, desktops and more" I guess a server OS is also not a strategic priority. Oh well. What is a good Debian-based server OS that is a bit more up-to-date than Debian (and also a strategic priority for its developer)?
Have you tried Debian + backports?
That always seemed to me a bandwagon feature, like Microsoft's SkyDrive: they saw DropBox succeeding, they figured it would be easy to emulate, and they learned otherwise when they tried it. The only way this change affects me personally is that it gives me one less thing to go in and switch off when I install a new Ubuntu system, but I'm glad they've got a pragmatic attitude toward the possibility of spreading thems…
Microsoft Skydrive launched in 2007, around a year before Dropbox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must admit that, more than once, an Ubuntu upgrade killed my audio and I had to go and fix it myself. It's really painful that a distro that wants to be number 1 is so broken at times.
I don't think it's more that they push non-prod ready packages (yes, they do) but the fact that their update model doesn't easily allow them to fix bugs from upstream. The vast majority of the packages in Ubuntu (more notably in the LTS releases) are all custom patched by Ubu-devs. Rather than taking the raw package and pushing it through, they have a semi-opaque method of testing, patching, and then releasing to the…
I don't think we purposely discourage people to participate, though I can understand getting lost in the process can be confusing.
"Our strategic priority for Ubuntu is making the best converged operating system for phones, tablets, desktops and more" I guess a server OS is also not a strategic priority. Oh well. What is a good Debian-based server OS that is a bit more up-to-date than Debian (and also a strategic priority for its developer)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must admit that, more than once, an Ubuntu upgrade killed my audio and I had to go and fix it myself. It's really painful that a distro that wants to be number 1 is so broken at times.
I don't think it's more that they push non-prod ready packages (yes, they do) but the fact that their update model doesn't easily allow them to fix bugs from upstream. The vast majority of the packages in Ubuntu (more notably in the LTS releases) are all custom patched by Ubu-devs. Rather than taking the raw package and pushing it through, they have a semi-opaque method of testing, patching, and then releasing to the…
I think this is an unfortunate perception. There's an active sponsorship queue, and nominated people run shifts to review and accept outside contributions. All contributors need to do is submit a suitable diff, and subscribe the sponsorship team to the bug. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess for details.
If you are willing, please help!
Where outside contributions tend to fall down (IMHO) is understanding and thus compliance with existing processes. For example, outside contributors tend (again, IMHO) to underestimate the consequence of regression in stable releases. Or they contribute patches that should really go upstream, and underestimate the extra overhead and community harm of independently maintaining these patches just in Ubuntu.
> Rather than taking the raw package and pushing it through...
The reason is the risk of regression. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates describes both the process you describe, and the rationale for it.
Where upstreams have sufficient QA and release process to sufficiently minimize the regression risk to existing users of a stable release, an exception can be granted so that the updates can just be pushed through: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExc...
That's about as classy a product shutdown as you could wish for. Pity this didn't work out financially for Canonical, and too bad for those users that came to rely on it (but this is the issue with pretty much any service that you don't operate yourself).
2 months continued service and another 2 months data access. It could be worse but it is a long way from the best you could wish for. 12 months to 2 years after the announcement would be what I would hope for from a big company winding up a service
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would but I love APT. I'll just stick to Debian Testing.
> I would but I love APT As a near 100% RHEL/Fedora user I am always wondering if there is anything but a material difference between apt and yum? From using Ubuntu extensively a few years ago they seem to have near identical feature set?
Apt/dpkg is also a lot more careful about its treatment of configuration files. Debian packages generally ask questions during preconfigure, build a config file, and then run out of the box. But if you already have a config file it will either be left alone or ask you to resolve the merge.
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/634/what-are-the-pro...
Did the timelines seem awfully aggressive to anyone? (June 1 service stops, July 31 all data is erased) For a service that we were suppose to be syncing our lives to, that seems like a really abrupt, customer unfriendly ramp-down. I would have expected something more like: 1. April 1 - no new accounts. 2. May 1 - can no longer add files to your existing account. 3. May - Dec - nagged/reminded constantly to pull your…
I don't think they are going to erase data from your devices, so I don't see a reason doing such a strange migration.
Regardless, for an online backup/sync service, I think a very compassionate ramp-down plan is on the order of 6 months with a few secret months of emergency recovery in the cases where people "forgot their child birth pictures were on there!" and the like.
If it wasn't a "backup your life" service, sure, a more aggressive ramp-down is fine... but for a service that tried for a few years to convince you to stick you life in it, I think it's overly aggressive.
I can't imagine their burn rate is _so high_ that it is not something they could have funded for a few extra months.
Anyway, just my opinion... a few of you have pointed out "how long does it take to move your data?" -- sure, if you are paying attention, have a stable/non-metered connection in a 1st world country and are always ontop of things the moment they happen... you are right, a few days maybe.
I am thinking of that small 10-15% of stragglers that miss the emails, miss the announcements and legitimately have important information sitting in One and don't realize it's gone until too late.
I'm pre-emptively feeling compassion for them :)
Very awesome that they release the code. I wish all companies would open source code they don't use anymore. I mean it really doesn't cost anything pushing your old code in a github repo or something.
Troubling that Ubuntu One wasn't already open source. Can anyone explain to me why every cloud drive is using their own proprietary protocols to do the same thing? Why we have to install a different client for each vendor? That's one thing that annoys me greatly, and I'll never use Dropbox as long as its syncing tool is proprietary. Does anyone else remember when companies were proud that they were the custodians of…
Plenty of companies have been jealous custodians of their file format to prevent interoperability.
Amazon's S3 interface seems to be widely emulated by cloud storage providers. Although that's very far from a complete sync solution.