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

Google Cloud Storage FUSE

cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#101

Post by toyg »

ofek wrote: post #81
mox1 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You licensed the code as MIT - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT Are you saying you have an issue with them copying your MIT licensed code?

Yes, copying the code without following up to actually collaborate or even forking to show attribution I think is bad practice for such a large organization, or any entity for that matter.

Just to clarify - the licenses you chose do not require any collaboration or "give back", they only require minimal attribution buried in some readme.

You can absolutely berate them for copying without attribution, but that's it; they don't owe you anything else.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#102

Post by capableweb »

olyjohn wrote: post #96
capableweb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does google even use MS office internally That'd be weird, considering they have their own suite of office tools. Kind of like if Microsoft would be using Google Cloud rather than Azure internally.

Kinda like if Microsoft ran Linux on their cloud...

Offering Linux on Azure makes sense, but do you think their own services they run in production run on Linux? If so, I'd be wary if I was a Windows Server customer.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#104

Post by ericpruitt »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #88
ofek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either, the choice is up to you. edit: as I express in a sibling comment this act is legally allowed of course, but is bad practice

> but is bad practice Says who/why? "It's mean/I don't get a callout/the credit I deserve" is "bad practice"? Why aren't you honored that your product was good enough for Google to absorb and build off of? I'd be super proud.

I have to agree. I use non-copyleft licenses because I don't expect people using the code to give me anything in return. Removing your the header and attribution is wrong, but not collaborating? As was said in other comments, if that's what you want, dictate it in your license because there are plenty of -- and dare I so most -- people that use the MIT license that don't care.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#105

Post by penciltwirler »

ofek wrote: post #77

I do appreciate that Google is now officially supporting gcsfuse because it genuinely is a great project. However, their Kubernetes CSI driver seems to have in large part copied code from the one I and a co-maintainer have been working on for years: - https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs Here is the initial commit: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse…

Haha a lot of funny comments here. I think overall it's neither here nor there. You should be proud that the "elites" at Google copied your code ;)

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#106

Post by tadfisher »

linsomniac wrote: post #21
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #7

I’ve experimented with using gcsfuse and its AWS equivalent, s3fs-fuse in production. At best, they are suited to niche applications; at worst, they are merely nice toys. The issue is that every file system operation is fundamentally an HTTP request, so the latency is several orders of magnitude higher than the equivalent disk operation. For certain applications that consistently read limited subsets of the filesyste…

>What I would really like to see is a two-tier cache system Is there any sort of Linux HSM (Hieracrhical Storage Manager)? I haven't see any and have been a bit surprised nothing has really developed there. They can manage putting hot data in RAM, SSDs, colder or larger data on spinning rust, deep freezing onto a tape silo or a cloud storage... Some of the NAS devices and RAID cards can support a two-tier caching or…

Not a general kernel facility that I know of. I use nfscache every day though; my Steam data directory lives on NFS, and I set up nfscache with a 100GB LRU storage. This way I can avoid the "backup/restore" dance and have all my games installed, at the cost of waiting up to a few minutes to warm the cache for a new game.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#107

Post by oittaa »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #87
oittaa wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that everything is encrypted by default in GCP. Though you need to manually configure encryption keys if you want to prevent Google ever having access to your data.

This I don't understand. Even if you configure KMS, those are still keys stored on Google infra.

You can use your own KMS outside the Google infrastructure. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/encryption/customer-su...

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#108

Post by whuan »

ofek wrote: post #77

I do appreciate that Google is now officially supporting gcsfuse because it genuinely is a great project. However, their Kubernetes CSI driver seems to have in large part copied code from the one I and a co-maintainer have been working on for years: - https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs Here is the initial commit: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse…

Are you accusing Google of "large part copied code" based on an old commit which is not even used in this official launch? Do you have any evidence from their recent commit? At least I don't see the current two repos are anywhere alike, except for that you both implement the same interface. Also, they did reach out to you and you just didn't respond, so why are you complaining now?

It makes me sad that no one here cares about whether your blame is true. And I'd expect you can provide more convincing evidence. But looks like the accusation is not even true. It's not fair for those contributors man, I hope you can apologize.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#109

Post by ofek »

whuan wrote: post #108
ofek wrote: post #77

I do appreciate that Google is now officially supporting gcsfuse because it genuinely is a great project. However, their Kubernetes CSI driver seems to have in large part copied code from the one I and a co-maintainer have been working on for years: - https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs Here is the initial commit: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse…

Are you accusing Google of "large part copied code" based on an old commit which is not even used in this official launch? Do you have any evidence from their recent commit? At least I don't see the current two repos are anywhere alike, except for that you both implement the same interface. Also, they did reach out to you and you just didn't respond, so why are you complaining now? It makes me sad that no one here ca…

I'm not sure if you thoroughly read what I wrote but I did respond to them. This is not a false accusation as you are claiming, you can check the contents of the repo in the current state.

Per the licenses they can copy but they must maintain attribution which has not been done.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#110

Post by ofek »

ofek wrote: post #77

I do appreciate that Google is now officially supporting gcsfuse because it genuinely is a great project. However, their Kubernetes CSI driver seems to have in large part copied code from the one I and a co-maintainer have been working on for years: - https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs Here is the initial commit: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse…

Update: attribution has been added to the readme file https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver/c...
Post reply on HN