PDA

View Full Version : [all variants] Should ubuntuforums have this section?



tgpraveen
May 28th, 2009, 11:22 AM
Dont want to troll but since the service is kind of proprietary should it not have its own separate forum?
mods if this is inappropriate then delete it.
just want to discuss this.
thx.

fatality_uk
May 28th, 2009, 12:33 PM
Yes!

dmizer
May 28th, 2009, 12:35 PM
Canonical requested it.

binbash
May 28th, 2009, 12:36 PM
Yes, it is a seperate project and it should has its own forum.I guess Canonical is trying to keep the project alive with pulling users from ubuntuforums.org

-100 to canonical

regala
May 28th, 2009, 12:50 PM
Canonical requested it.

and the people obey. :)

Vadi
May 28th, 2009, 01:41 PM
I'm sure you can make your own server-side setup for this and be just happy.

also, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make it a pita for people who are interested in this. you aren't, and you're doing a damn good job at frustrating those who are!

zekopeko
May 28th, 2009, 03:41 PM
Yes, it is a seperate project and it should has its own forum.I guess Canonical is trying to keep the project alive with pulling users from ubuntuforums.org

-100 to canonical

my guess is that the ubuntu client will be installed in future ubuntu's so why not have a subforum in a forum that is providing help to ubuntu users?

regala
May 28th, 2009, 03:56 PM
I'm sure you can make your own server-side setup for this and be just happy.

also, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make it a pita for people who are interested in this. you aren't, and you're doing a damn good job at frustrating those who are!

frustrating people is the least thing I would like to do. Sure you have your way of getting annoyed by anything you dislike.
hint: you should ignore what you dislike, if it's only 3 damn words on a forum. get a life.
or to put it in another way:
is humor still authorized on these forums or do we just have to be quiet unless we can effectively help people ? I won't stop trying to make people smile.

but maybe my 3 words post was clearly against the forum terms of use, and I fail to see where, then you can enlighten me. :)

PS: I am not serious, it is humor, but if you fail to see that...

Vadi
May 28th, 2009, 07:28 PM
You aren't the first one ranting against UbuntuOne, so obviously, it's not funny anymore.

frodon
May 28th, 2009, 07:31 PM
Don't forget, the client is open source and it's commercial service afterall ;)

PhoHammer
May 28th, 2009, 07:37 PM
You aren't the first one ranting against UbuntuOne, so obviously, it's not funny anymore.

What's so bad about it?

celticbhoy
May 28th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Mark Shuttleworth has made a big noise about cloud computing, so it is safe to presume that in future the UbuntuOne client will be installed by default in Ubuntu. As there is a free 2G version available to all I don't see the big problem, but others do. I do think it is wise to have a sub-forum for it as it is a big talking point, and it allows users to read up on a variety of opinion before it is installed on their machine.

celticbhoy
May 28th, 2009, 09:18 PM
[QUOTE]What's so bad about it?/QUOTE]

What is upsetting a lot of people is that Canaonical are a commercial company and they will be charging for those who wish more than the 2G free storage amount. As this is a commercial undertaking a lot of people think that the name should not be directly associated with Ubuntu a free open source project, and as such should not be on the Ubuntu forums.

bigbrovar
May 28th, 2009, 11:05 PM
I was shocked when i saw the post on identica about ubuntu one having a support section at ubuntu forums? .. am just speechless ... not only is something that completely contradicts what ubuntu stands for has to share a name with ubuntu, it is also given its own support section in ubuntu forums? i remembered that Other OS section --- a place one could go to and learn and get help about other foss distros was closed to reduce load on the forum. yet a support section was created for a purely proprietary tool.. sure the client is open source. but is the client that important for it to have its own support thread? .. i have just lost the last iota of respect i have for canonical. its just shameless in my opinion that this thing should happen.

wsonar
May 28th, 2009, 11:21 PM
What is upsetting a lot of people is that Canaonical are a commercial company and they will be charging for those who wish more than the 2G free storage amount. As this is a commercial undertaking a lot of people think that the name should not be directly associated with Ubuntu a free open source project, and as such should not be on the Ubuntu forums.

I still don't understand why people are upset you get 2 gigs of roaming storage that syncs with your ubuntu prof and the client is open

its canonical ubuntu is canonical personally I think they should take it further and make ubuntuOne like a .live type of social networking/email/prof network then you would attract more Internet users and get them hooked on canonical just like good ol MS

maybe not that far but the forum is like a community already instead of live.com people can get e-mail at one.com or whatever

if canonical really wants to increase market I would suggest a big interent presence that's why internet search in synonymous with 'google' and now linux on the phone is synonymous with 'android'

when non linux users talk about Linux you here more about android than other distro's and it's only a phone OS


</blabla>

celticbhoy
May 28th, 2009, 11:31 PM
I wasn't saying I disagree with it, just what the argument is. If you read my first post you will see I think it is a good idea. I have it installed and use it for syncing a project on my netbook with my home desktop.

wsonar
May 28th, 2009, 11:41 PM
I wasn't saying I disagree with it, just what the argument is. If you read my first post you will see I think it is a good idea. I have it installed and use it for syncing a project on my netbook with my home desktop.

Right I was following up on your quote I think....

JC Cheloven
May 29th, 2009, 12:59 AM
No hope for the human being.

Madpilot
May 29th, 2009, 01:26 AM
While I have reservations about UbuntuOne, to be fair to it, Canonical & the UbuntuForums folks, there are other commercial outfits & projects with subforums here on ubuntuforums - System76 & Dell both have their specific subforums...

Of all the issues around U1, whether they should be here or not is a very minor one!

PhoHammer
May 29th, 2009, 01:55 AM
i remembered that Other OS section --- a place one could go to and learn and get help about other foss distros was closed to reduce load on the forum.

Yeah, that would be nice to have back...

tgpraveen
May 30th, 2009, 05:17 PM
[QUOTE]What's so bad about it?/QUOTE]

What is upsetting a lot of people is that Canaonical are a commercial company and they will be charging for those who wish more than the 2G free storage amount. As this is a commercial undertaking a lot of people think that the name should not be directly associated with Ubuntu a free open source project, and as such should not be on the Ubuntu forums.

No
The majority of the people are ok with canonical making making with this software.
Heck the more money they make the better for us.
And canonical does make money from ubuntu from OEMS.

let us be clear what is upsetting people is that this is CLOSED SOURCE.
the client being open source is of no use without the server.i cant do anything with only the client right now.

So just make It FOSS and then people will gladly even pay for the premium versions.

ubuntu is free software, so ubuntu one should either be renamed and canonical should not integrate it by default else open it up.

Vadi
May 30th, 2009, 08:34 PM
Let's be serious here. Ubuntu has paid support, how many use it? A laughable amount.

celticbhoy
May 31st, 2009, 12:01 AM
Apologies tgpraveen, I was only commenting on the little info I had read on bits of this and other threads. My statement was to try & help someone understand why this is an issue at all. If I have been inacurate then I apologize.

Alucard-sama
May 31st, 2009, 06:18 AM
purely proprietary tool.. sure the client is open source..

This is confusing me, is it proprietary or Open-Source, or does it have a mixed license? Is it that actual service that's proprietary? *confuzzeled*

tacone
June 1st, 2009, 04:24 AM
Why was this forum opened ? Why on ubuntuforums.org and not on canonicalbusinessforums.org ?

I really think that Canonical acknowledged the concerns that the community has in regard of Ubuntu One and has requested this forum to let you and the UbuntuOne kids know better and perhaps even play together.

I don't see any attempt to steal users or whatever. That's a ridicule claim.

dmizer
June 1st, 2009, 07:15 AM
This is confusing me, is it proprietary or Open-Source, or does it have a mixed license? Is it that actual service that's proprietary? *confuzzeled*

No, only the server side software is closed. The protocol is open, which means that a developer could fairly easily create an Ubuntu One server.


Why was this forum opened ? Why on ubuntuforums.org and not on canonicalbusinessforums.org ?

As I said here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7360282&postcount=3 the forum exists because Canonical requested it.

As was noted here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7363803&postcount=19 Ubuntu One is not the only commercial area on this forum.

Since the open source client will be available in Ubuntu, it will require support. It's logical to have a support form for Ubuntu One in Ubuntuforums.org.

ubuntu-geek
June 1st, 2009, 12:01 PM
While I have reservations about UbuntuOne, to be fair to it, Canonical & the UbuntuForums folks, there are other commercial outfits & projects with subforums here on ubuntuforums - System76 & Dell both have their specific subforums...

Of all the issues around U1, whether they should be here or not is a very minor one!
You beat me to the punch.

And in general to everyone, let's remember canonical owns this forum and they are entitled to request a category about one of their products. Having the Ubuntu One forum is no different then the Dell or System76 forum here.

tacone
June 1st, 2009, 12:43 PM
Why was this forum opened ? Why on ubuntuforums.org and not on canonicalbusinessforums.org ?

As I said here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...82&postcount=3 the forum exists because Canonical requested it.


I can't help but think you didn't really read my post.

dmizer
June 1st, 2009, 01:11 PM
I can't help but think you didn't really read my post.
.

Edit:
You're quite right, I did not. Sincere apologies.

Technoviking
June 2nd, 2009, 05:37 AM
This forum was created to help give the community a chance to give feedback and get technical to the Ubuntu One developers. People are complaining that Ubuntu One is not free and Canonical abusing the good will of Ubuntu, but yet they requested a "forum" to get input from the community at the beginning of this new product line.

Ubuntu and Canonical has always have supported the ideas of free software, but they have done it in a pragmatic way. The inclusion of NVIDIA driver, certain wireless driver, etc... Most people see the free software battle as a line in the sand, but it is a battle of inches and every day we get a little closer to victory.

T-V

binbash
June 2nd, 2009, 06:28 PM
While I have reservations about UbuntuOne, to be fair to it, Canonical & the UbuntuForums folks, there are other commercial outfits & projects with subforums here on ubuntuforums - System76 & Dell both have their specific subforums...

Of all the issues around U1, whether they should be here or not is a very minor one!

Yes but they (DELL APPLE etc ) did not force ubuntuforums.org staff to open the subforum right? (read page 1 ).This is not ethic.So now probably they are forcing the Ubuntu Devs to get it installed default..This is not the philosophy of Ubuntu!

thebear78
June 2nd, 2009, 07:27 PM
@binbash: Just so you know, nobody forced ubuntuforums.org staff to do anything. I'm the product manager for Ubuntu One and asked for this category to be created. My goal was to channel some of the existing discussions around the Ubuntu One service, the Ubuntu One desktop and web APIs, and the tech behind Ubuntu One. We're working on some really cool stuff that all Ubuntu users will benefit from whether they are a (free/paid) subscriber or not... or even if you were an Ubuntu One subscriber and left the service. Preventing lock-in (nobody likes that) is central to our planning and was a key part of our discussions last week at UDS.

I appreciate everyone's comments on this topic... lots to read. :) I ask that everyone be a little patient. Right now, the team is working *very hard* to address bugs identified by the beta testers and improve the infrastructure to support more beta users. You will soon see more information about our developer resources and how all developers can use our technology research and work to innovate on the desktop (and web).

doas777
June 2nd, 2009, 07:43 PM
I was shocked when i saw the post on identica about ubuntu one having a support section at ubuntu forums? .. am just speechless ... not only is something that completely contradicts what ubuntu stands for has to share a name with ubuntu, it is also given its own support section in ubuntu forums? i remembered that Other OS section --- a place one could go to and learn and get help about other foss distros was closed to reduce load on the forum. yet a support section was created for a purely proprietary tool.. sure the client is open source. but is the client that important for it to have its own support thread? .. i have just lost the last iota of respect i have for canonical. its just shameless in my opinion that this thing should happen.

I agree, part of the animosity here, is removal of other threads, that didn't fit canonical's grand vision (OMGPP/OOS/etc). We have been lead to believe that having OUR favorite threads on the forum are a problem, but any corporate sponsors' are fine.

not that I really care one way or t'other. I have trust issues, and will not buy into any supposed "cloud" solution.

binbash
June 2nd, 2009, 09:09 PM
@binbash: Just so you know, nobody forced ubuntuforums.org staff to do anything. I'm the product manager for Ubuntu One and asked for this category to be created. My goal was to channel some of the existing discussions around the Ubuntu One service, the Ubuntu One desktop and web APIs, and the tech behind Ubuntu One. We're working on some really cool stuff that all Ubuntu users will benefit from whether they are a (free/paid) subscriber or not... or even if you were an Ubuntu One subscriber and left the service. Preventing lock-in (nobody likes that) is central to our planning and was a key part of our discussions last week at UDS.

I appreciate everyone's comments on this topic... lots to read. :) I ask that everyone be a little patient. Right now, the team is working *very hard* to address bugs identified by the beta testers and improve the infrastructure to support more beta users. You will soon see more information about our developer resources and how all developers can use our technology research and work to innovate on the desktop (and web).

Thanks for the clarifications.As long as it is not included in default installation of Ubuntu, i do not care about forum stuff.

gn2
June 3rd, 2009, 10:02 AM
As long as it is not included in default installation of Ubuntu, i do not care about forum stuff.

I would be astonished if it doesn't form part of a default Ubuntu installation, but we'll have to wait and see.

tgpraveen
June 3rd, 2009, 03:26 PM
at uds it was decided that ubuntu one services will be INCLUDED by default from karmic and the installer itself will ask u to create a account.

celticbhoy
June 3rd, 2009, 03:42 PM
It is for that reason I think UbuntuOne should be discussed and explained before people are faced with it on upgrade/install.

thebear78
June 3rd, 2009, 04:07 PM
Sorry guys. You're incorrect about the decision to add Ubuntu One to the install process. I was in the UDS session [1] where we discussed it. I also reviewed the Gobby notes from the session and the final decision was to "not modify the install or add a desktop icon."

[1] https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-karmic-ubuntu-one-in-installer

celticbhoy
June 3rd, 2009, 04:53 PM
But will the client be installed by default even if account setup is not required during install?

thebear78
June 3rd, 2009, 07:24 PM
@celticbhoy: Sorry for the delay. The client will be installed by default. Like Gwibber [1], the Ubuntu One client will be important to the Social from the Start experience of Karmic.

[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-karmic-social-from-the-start

celticbhoy
June 3rd, 2009, 07:58 PM
Then I believe that that is reason enough for this sub forum to exit - although I think it should only run for a 12 month period unless demand dictates it stay's open.

Didius Falco
June 5th, 2009, 03:54 AM
@celticbhoy: Sorry for the delay. The client will be installed by default. Like Gwibber [1], the Ubuntu One client will be important to the Social from the Start experience of Karmic.

[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-karmic-social-from-the-start

How tightly will it be tied into Ubuntu?

Can you uninstall it with no ill effects, i.e. uninstalling dependencies other things count on? For a good example, try removing Evolution without borking your whole install.

The part in red seems to have been fixed in 9.04, so you can disregard that part, but I'd still like to know about the removal the client.

Regards,

Didius

Z_o-s-o
June 5th, 2009, 05:55 AM
The question is..should this topic exist in this sub-forum.

People are making a big deal about nothing here...so what if the client uses the Ubuntu name....

This app ties directly into Ubuntu and is the first step in taking our beloved OS into the cloud....

Now if Canonical had chosen to use the name for a product or service that had no direct tie to Ubuntu the OS, then maybe....theres a "bug" report open about this asinine topic over at Launchpad. Mr. Shuttleworth himself has posted on the topic, you should all go read it.

doas777
June 5th, 2009, 11:36 PM
The question is..should this topic exist in this sub-forum.

People are making a big deal about nothing here...so what if the client uses the Ubuntu name....

This app ties directly into Ubuntu and is the first step in taking our beloved OS into the cloud....

Now if Canonical had chosen to use the name for a product or service that had no direct tie to Ubuntu the OS, then maybe....theres a "bug" report open about this asinine topic over at Launchpad. Mr. Shuttleworth himself has posted on the topic, you should all go read it.

so if I invent a new product called OMG Purple Ponies, and lock all the ubuntu users into using it, then we can have the OMGPP forum back?

Z_o-s-o
June 6th, 2009, 12:10 AM
You don't own the Ubuntu trademarks and such, so no....

If the product is useful, which it is, and ties into our OS, which it does, and is open source, which it is....we shouldn't be having this discussion.

Didius Falco
June 6th, 2009, 05:56 PM
n/m

aysiu
June 6th, 2009, 06:35 PM
For a good example, try removing Evolution without borking your whole install. I've been removing Evolution for just about every release since Hoary and haven't had any problems doing so. I always replace it with Thunderbird.

doas777
June 8th, 2009, 08:09 PM
I've been removing Evolution for just about every release since Hoary and haven't had any problems doing so. I always replace it with Thunderbird.

I've always been told not to do that:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/49524

aysiu
June 8th, 2009, 08:16 PM
I've always been told not to do that:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/49524
From that bug report:
Evolution, Pidgin and Tomboy can all be easily removed without removing
ubuntu-desktop.

Didius Falco
June 8th, 2009, 09:19 PM
I've been removing Evolution for just about every release since Hoary and haven't had any problems doing so. I always replace it with Thunderbird.

When I tried to uninstall it under 8.10, it wanted to take out a long list of things that I instinctively thought was a Bad Idea.

I think it was probably from the command line with something like
sudo apt-get remove --purge evolut*

I just ran it now, and got the following results:


Building package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Note, selecting libevolution5.0-cil for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-common for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-jescs for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-data-server-dbg for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-webcal for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-data-server-dev for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting libevolution3.0-cil for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-indicator for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-exchange for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-mapi for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-dbg for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-dev for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-rss for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-plugins-experimental for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting openoffice.org-evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-de for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-cs for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-el for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-en for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-es for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-fr for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting python-django-evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-mk for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-oc for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-ru for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-documentation-sv for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting mail-notification-evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting openoffice.org2-evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting openoffice.org-evolution instead of openoffice.org2-evolution
Note, selecting beagle-backend-evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-data-server1.2 for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting librevolution-ruby for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting libevolution2.0-cil for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-plugins for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-data-server for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting librevolution-ruby1.8 for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting opensync-plugin-evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting libevolution-cil for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting libmultisync-plugin-evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting b2evolution for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-data-server-common for regex 'evolut*'
Note, selecting evolution-exchange-dbg for regex 'evolut*'
The following packages will be REMOVED:
ekiga* evolution* evolution-common* evolution-data-server*
evolution-data-server-common* evolution-documentation-en*
evolution-exchange* evolution-indicator* evolution-plugins*
evolution-webcal* fast-user-switch-applet* gnome-applets* gnome-panel*
indicator-applet* indicator-messages* libedataserverui1.2-8* ubuntu-desktop*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 17 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
After this operation, 86.1MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


Then, as now, I didn't do it...I just re-ran it, using
sudo apt-get remove --purge evolution

and got a much more reasonable response:


Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
evolution* evolution-exchange* evolution-indicator* evolution-plugins*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 4 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
After this operation, 10.8MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


Note to Self: When doing Purges, be a little more "high-colonic" and a lot less "Josef Stalin"!! :D

aysiu
June 8th, 2009, 09:36 PM
So what's the problem?

Didius Falco
June 9th, 2009, 07:56 AM
So what's the problem?

The problem with Evolution removal is that many newer users do not know that parts of it are tied into the the main desktop functionality, so if you remove everything with Evolution in the name, either from the CLI or Synaptic, you wind up borking your system.

Once you know that, it isn't a problem, just an annoyance.

But, we are drifting away from the main point of the thread, which is Ubuntu One, and my particular question, which is: can it be safely and completely removed?

Regards,

Didius

rodrigo_
June 10th, 2009, 11:16 AM
The problem with Evolution removal is that many newer users do not know that parts of it are tied into the the main desktop functionality, so if you remove everything with Evolution in the name, either from the CLI or Synaptic, you wind up borking your system.

Once you know that, it isn't a problem, just an annoyance.

But, we are drifting away from the main point of the thread, which is Ubuntu One, and my particular question, which is: can it be safely and completely removed?

Regards,

Didius
yes, it can be removed if you don't want to use it. As we integrate it further into the distro (Tomboy, Evolution, etc, etc), we'll make sure the desktop is 100% usable for users without UbuntuOne account. So yes, don't worry, we won't force people to have an UbuntuOne account.

Of course, since there's a free plan, the advantages of having an UbuntuOne account will be so many, that I can't imagine why users won't have an account. But again, desktop will be totally usable without an account

doas777
June 10th, 2009, 06:06 PM
yes, it can be removed if you don't want to use it. As we integrate it further into the distro (Tomboy, Evolution, etc, etc), we'll make sure the desktop is 100% usable for users without UbuntuOne account. So yes, don't worry, we won't force people to have an UbuntuOne account.

Of course, since there's a free plan, the advantages of having an UbuntuOne account will be so many, that I can't imagine why users won't have an account. But again, desktop will be totally usable without an account

many personal privacy advocates use linux, because it allows them greater control over their exposure. UbuntuOne, is a very risky proposition from their perspective. having a service monitor my apps and store their data who-knows-where-in-the-cloud is a serious vulnerability. I certianly don't plan to move my nicely encrypted data out from behind my firewall, in the clear, to just stick up on a server that i don;t control.

aysiu
June 10th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Certainly no one is forcing you to use UbuntuOne if you don't want to use it.

Still, I don't see how rodrigo_ could just assume everyone would want such an account.

Even if you don't have privacy concerns over this, you may just have no practical need for it. Or you may prefer other alternatives.

I probably won't use UbuntuOne, as I often share files online with my wife, who has a Macbook Pro (with OS X, not Ubuntu). DropBox is cross-platform and also offers 2 GB of space. I think it's actually a bad idea for Ubuntu to make this a Linux-only thing.

Rainstride
June 11th, 2009, 01:09 AM
Certainly no one is forcing you to use UbuntuOne if you don't want to use it.

Still, I don't see how rodrigo_ could just assume everyone would want such an account.

Even if you don't have privacy concerns over this, you may just have no practical need for it. Or you may prefer other alternatives.

I probably won't use UbuntuOne, as I often share files online with my wife, who has a Macbook Pro (with OS X, not Ubuntu). DropBox is cross-platform and also offers 2 GB of space. I think it's actually a bad idea for Ubuntu to make this a Linux-only thing.

you could always use a web browser....you don't have to have the program installed.

aysiu
June 11th, 2009, 02:14 AM
you could always use a web browser....you don't have to have the program installed.
But DropBox gives me both.

I can access it through the web browser, but it can also sync files in a folder on multiple machines (and non-Ubuntu ones as well). It's far more convenient to put things in a folder than to have to keep uploading and downloading through a web interface.

zekopeko
June 11th, 2009, 06:31 PM
But DropBox gives me both.

I can access it through the web browser, but it can also sync files in a folder on multiple machines (and non-Ubuntu ones as well). It's far more convenient to put things in a folder than to have to keep uploading and downloading through a web interface.

i think that they are simply focusing on the ubuntu side of things for now. there is no barrier not to offer win/mac support later. and since the client and protocol are opensource a replacement can easily be coded.

joobleblob
June 17th, 2009, 08:56 PM
the real question is.
"would it be easier to allow canonical to make some money for the projects that they provide us with free of charge, or would it be easier to start a thread moaning about where they placed their adverts"

I'm just in a moany mood today, byyeee

joshuablount
June 18th, 2009, 04:29 PM
I think it's actually a bad idea for Ubuntu to make this a Linux-only thing.

Just wanted to note that we agree :)

The file sharing portion of Ubuntu One has always had a plan of access via various other operating systems. It's not our main focus (right now we're focused on getting all the people who requested invitations invited to the service!) but it is definitely part of our plans.

Providing an amazing, out of the box experience with Ubuntu is our first priority though. If it doesn't work for you (right now) I totally understand, but I hope you'll take a second look sometime in the near future to see what we're cooking up, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised!

yookoala
June 19th, 2009, 12:50 PM
many personal privacy advocates use linux, because it allows them greater control over their exposure. UbuntuOne, is a very risky proposition from their perspective. having a service monitor my apps and store their data who-knows-where-in-the-cloud is a serious vulnerability. I certianly don't plan to move my nicely encrypted data out from behind my firewall, in the clear, to just stick up on a server that i don;t control.


That is not the case now.

It is only a service that creates a folder in your home folder, then syncs it with the cloud. That's it right now. I'm not seeing any problem here.

OK, it grows in the future. Well, even if UbuntuOne syncs my application data to the cloud in the future, why not? As long as it is configurable, I'll be OK with it. I had hard time reinstalling Linux desktop for years. Desktop is the machine that I'm supposed to work on, not work at. A good online backup could be a relieve to me.

If UbuntuOne works, it could be the kind of service that Linux company can actually make profits from. Profitable Linux industry would attract more investment and thus make Linux and FOSS better. That would be a great help to Linux and FOSS industry.

zekopeko
June 21st, 2009, 06:54 PM
many personal privacy advocates use linux, because it allows them greater control over their exposure. UbuntuOne, is a very risky proposition from their perspective. having a service monitor my apps and store their data who-knows-where-in-the-cloud is a serious vulnerability. I certianly don't plan to move my nicely encrypted data out from behind my firewall, in the clear, to just stick up on a server that i don;t control.

your data is encrypted by default in the cloud and during transfer.

dmizer
June 22nd, 2009, 04:22 AM
your data is encrypted by default in the cloud and during transfer.

Not trying to take sides here, but as we all know: physical access is as good compromised. And with cloud computing, you have no control over the physical machine upon which your data is stored.

master_kernel
June 22nd, 2009, 11:42 PM
Thanks for the post, I just signed up. Didn't even know about it until I saw this!

zekopeko
June 22nd, 2009, 11:45 PM
Not trying to take sides here, but as we all know: physical access is as good compromised. And with cloud computing, you have no control over the physical machine upon which your data is stored.

therefore encryption. the point is that nobody can access your data if they don't know your password (unless you have a weak password and a couple supercomupters to brute force it). ubuntu and amazon people can't see your data so what's the difference?

boballen55
June 25th, 2009, 12:49 AM
I just wish it didn't use the Ubuntu name.

Z_o-s-o
June 25th, 2009, 07:26 AM
Some of you guys should go join Richard Stallman and his army of loons