Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Docs To Host Any File Type

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the not-the-g-drive dept.

Google 186

ezabi writes "According to a post on the official Google blog, in the coming weeks Google Docs will offer to host all file types with a limit of 250 MB, which as they say is larger than the current limit for email attachments. This will have its consequences: paid file sharing will die, more shared pirated material, newer vulnerabilities and malware distribution channels..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

kdawson (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30743864)

He does it again....

It's official: another biased summary from kdawson

Strike up the Band !! The Yanks are Coming !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744528)

Eli is next !!

Then the Rapture !!

All you Mofos are Left Behind, Mofos !!

And playing with ur Warez in Googlieland !!

Then you die, Mofos !!

Re:Strike up the Band !! The Yanks are Coming !! (1)

cheftw (996831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745944)

So what makes this a troll?

This isn't an anything, and it's certainly not inflammatory or offensive.

Explain yourself, Mr. Mod!

fisrt! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30743876)

fisrt

Will these be all public too? (0)

counterplex (765033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30743880)

Google's last foray into all-inclusive communications (Voice) resulted in lots of voicemails being made publicly searchable. I wonder if the same fate awaits all your documents. It hasn't happened for the documents that exist already on Google docs but what of the ones that are not created by Google docs and don't have the same rights data associated with them?

Re:Will these be all public too? (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30743956)

I never really trusted putting any of my documents in google docs at all...then the google voice thing happened and that sealed the deal.

Re:Will these be all public too? (2, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745080)

I never really trusted putting any of my documents in google docs at all.

I never really trusted putting any of my documents online at all.

Not unless I;

  • wanted them to be seen,
  • they were unimportant enough that it didn't matter if they were seen,
  • or if I'd encrypted them.

Putting documents online is putting them in a public space. You only do that if you want them to be available.

Re:Will these be all public too? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30743992)

Nothing precludes them fucking up; but it should be no harder to attach permissions to an object you upload than to an object you create.

Re:Will these be all public too? (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744032)

I would rather it be me screwing up permissions on something than rely on someone else.

Re:Will these be all public too? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744152)

Then it sounds like no third party file sharing/storage services are for you.

I was merely noting that the problem of assigning correct permissions to uploaded files is of identical difficulty to the one of assigning correct permissions to files created in google docs.

There is no reason to be especially confident about either; but there is good reason to have equal levels of confidence, however high or low those levels be.

Re:Will these be all public too? (1, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744026)

What does it matter if the documents are encrypted? Paid file sharing dying would be a good thing, people shouldn't have to pay to share what is theirs. The only downside I see is increased vulnerabilities.

Re:Will these be all public too? (5, Informative)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744112)

Paid file sharing dying would be a good thing, people shouldn't have to pay to share what is theirs.

They cost money because it costs money to share data. Or did you think bandwidth, servers, and storage were free?

Re:Will these be all public too? (2, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744148)

I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING should be free. At least for them.

Re:Will these be all public too? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744288)

I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING is free. At least for them.

Fixed that for you. ;)

Re:Will these be all public too? (2, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744292)


I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING should be free. At least for them.

Wrong. Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their free software and content.

Re:Will these be all public too? (2, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744730)

I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING should be free. At least for them.

Wrong. Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their free software and content.

Ah, let me make that statement a bit more accurate...

Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their stolen software and pirated content.

The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.

Re:Will these be all public too? (4, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745028)


Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their stolen software and pirated content.

Your software was stolen? Are you sure you didn't just misplace it? Scan your drives again to make sure it's really gone.


The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.

I can see it now. ACTA paragraph 666 - no person shall possess more than 640kb of storage without a license. That, after all, is enough for anybody.

Re:Will these be all public too? (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745244)

Your software was stolen? Are you sure you didn't just misplace it? Scan your drives again to make sure it's really gone.

Once I found some stolen software and downloaded it so I could burn it on a CD and return it to its owner. He wasn't interested, for some reason. I even offered to mail it to him. I don't think he had bought new software, either, so I guess he just didn't need it anymore. People are confusing when it comes to stolen software.

Re:Will these be all public too? (-1, Offtopic)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745290)

I can see it now. ACTA paragraph 666 - no person shall possess more than 640kb of storage without a license. That, after all, is enough for anybody.

I can only hope you realize that nobody ever said that whole "640k ought to be enough for anybody." As much as people around here love to bash Bill Gates, he never said that.

Re:Will these be all public too? (1)

rgo (986711) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745596)

because they have no other choice

Re:Will these be all public too? (2, Interesting)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744250)


They cost money because it costs money to share data. Or did you think bandwidth, servers, and storage were free?

Users pay their ISP's for the bandwidth, can install a free OSS server on just about any machine, and with 2T drives available store data at a very reasonable cost. Again, vulnerabilities and malware are really the only downsides.

Re:Will these be all public too? (2, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744384)

Then install an FTP server on your home connection and share away. You can even get a second connection so that you still have usable internet.

Sharing your own content is trivial and can be free (for small values of $cost). Sharing your content with the world in a useful way will be very expensive.

Re:Will these be all public too? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744822)

You can even get a second connection so that you still have usable internet.

It's called QoS, idiot.

Re:Will these be all public too? (1)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744986)

You try and QoS connection requests from all over the world , oh wait , you cant because they're already down the line from your ISP by the time they get to you.(well DUH)

Re:Will these be all public too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744524)

Odd, somehow the sites I don't pay for use all those things too...

counterplex the idiot (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744222)

Boggle.

It is so sad to get these reminders of just what a bunch of ignorant people fill the Net like counterplex.

Let's just refresh everyone's memory of searchable Google Voice:

* Google implemented search for Google Voice for people who decided to make their stuff public

* Dumbasses in the media tried to spin it as some sort of privacy violation

* Articles came out stating why the idiots babbling about privacy violation were spewing garbage since the only Google Voice stuff being indexed was stuff people decided to make public

* Same dumbasses in the media came out with 'yeah, but...I still want to be mad at Google followup articles'

Idiots like counterplex obviously just read the sensational headlines and parrot them as their own 'insight' into future stories.

intercourse the penguin! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744940)

parent post's subject reminded me of a Python bit...

And now, BBC4 will explode.

*great crashing explosing is heard*

Re:Will these be all public too? (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744240)

Google's last foray into all-inclusive communications (Voice) resulted in lots of voicemails being made publicly searchable. I wonder if the same fate awaits all your documents...

All your documents are belong to us?

Re:Will these be all public too? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744278)

As usual, you can make things as public as you want. After all, they are on-line. If you want to keep them for yourself... keep them in your computer, not "in the cloud".
Google offers e-mail, is it public? and can you search through it?
Google offers picture albums (Picasa). Are they public? Can you make them private and unlisted?
Google already offers google docs. The same thing, you can make them private or public.
Google voicemail messages were public, because users configured they settings to make them public. Why would this case be different?

Re:Will these be all public too? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744684)

So the fact that those idiots publicly posted those voice mails and then Google just indexed them off the site as usual just completely escaped you or did you just want to sound like you knew what you were talking about for some free mod points.

I hate fucking idiots.

What? (3, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30743940)

Is the summary a troll or just an attempt at sarcasm?

There are plenty of free filesharing sites, and 250mb is pretty paltry by their standards, not to mention the fact that Google has pretty decent standards for who it lets have an account. Given the amount of information they have on everyone, it's the last site you want to know if you're doing something illegal.

Unless I guess you count .gov domains.

Re:What? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744052)

Yeah, come on... "newer vulnerabilities and malware distribution channels"? Because Google is known for loads of vulnerabilities in their systems? I can't remember that many. (Yeah, I have distant memory of some GMail vulnerability long ago... There have been some. But honestly, they have awesome track record.) Or because viruses and the like take 250mb these days?

Think tabloid headlines (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744106)

The headline and summary has to attract eyeballs, more eyeballs, more posts, more activity more ads being viewed, more income.

I believe Miranda Hart's christmas special had a parody on a BBC prog, "Can twitter kill you". Reporter going around with ever more suggestive overvoice "do you know that right now your child is dying from twitter in this school", Worried Mom: "This isn't my child's school".

Simply stating that you can now store 250mb on your google account in a single file (wonder what the total limit will be) is amazing. Some HD maker must have had a very nice christmas.

Re:What? (5, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744154)

250mb is pretty paltry by their standards

It's not 250MB total storage space. It's 250MB maximum per file. It's probably true that most e-mail clients/servers do a poor job of handling 250MB attachments. In that sense, this is probably a good thing; we've all complained about the coworker who sends out a 15MB movie of their kids playing with the dog to a mailing list, but what option do most average users have? Even if they know what FTP is, they don't own any servers. If Google is going to handhold consumers through the process of storing big files in the Web instead of sending them as attachments, I say bravo.

Re:What? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744218)

Oh, and currently SkyDrive only supports files up to 50MB in size.

Re:What? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744706)

I see your SkyDrive and raise you a Mediafire [mediafire.com] 200mb... so I did overstate in calling 250mb paltry, but it's in no way revolutionary.

Re:What? (0, Troll)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744996)

Nah, and it's also arbitrary. If it supported files up to 350MB, that might be big enough to fit an hour-long TV program encoded in MPEG-4 using typical TV-trader settings. That would open up more copyright issues for Google, so one easy stopgap is to limit the maximum file size. Mind you, this won't stop anyone from uploading RAR sets, but at least people won't be streaming those direct from Google Docs.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744794)

Is the summary a troll or just an attempt at sarcasm?

It's an attempt to rationalize the situation, while interpreting the facts as the "ezabi" and/or the editors see them. Nothing so heinous as a troll, or overplayed as sarcasm.

There are plenty of free filesharing sites

All of which that I've seen have some limitations. Either you pay, or your bandwidth is capped, or you're limited to $files per $timeperiod, or $megabytes per $timeperiod, etc. As ezabi and/or the editors and I see it, it's unlikely Google is going to be quite as annoying or limited as they are with this regard. It's willing to subsidize the cost of the bandwidth for mindshare and long-term money. (ie, "Google's file service is so great I'll probably just use their other services too"). A free service from a household name with less frustrating limitations could very well grab the market.

and 250mb is pretty paltry by their standards

When you hit the filesize limit at most other file sharing sights, it's common to split the file into multiple files (usually via rar). That should work here - the limit isn't a big issue if Google lets you download the partial-files one after another. Consider youtube's length limit, and how it's circumvented by simply making a play list with multiple limited-length videos.

Even more important is the likely scenario that Google ups the limit as the service matures. Remember how much gmail used to allow at first? Take a look at what they offer now. It's not a reach to imagine a similar thing happening here. Harddrives are cheap, and Google has tones of experience scaling that up.

not to mention the fact that Google has pretty decent standards for who it lets have an account.

I'm guessing you've never read any comment ever on youtube? Google fights bots, but with humans it plays fast and loose with accounts, I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise.

Given the amount of information they have on everyone, it's the last site you want to know if you're doing something illegal.

Despite the fact that they eventually gave in to China for censorship and various music and movie IP's on youtube, Google has been a pretty big advocate of such freedoms (well, from Big Brother and Big Media - not necessarily from Big Search Engine/Advertisement Service). They fought China, Viacom, et al on the issues before giving in, and they've fought the US on such issue as well (no links handy, hopefully another /.'er can oblige). Honestly, I'd be more inclined to trust Google with my info then a random filesharing service, if I had to trust anyone.

But here's the cool thing - you can log out, or make an account just for shady stuff and switch between the two. Heck, doesn't Chrome have some sort of privacy mode? Yes, Google could match the IP with past account info and maybe put two and two together. Even so, the idea that you're using Google vs $random_fileshare_sight doesn't really increase the odds of getting caught.

Or you could just keep it legal d:

It's possible Google is willing to ruin its still pretty solid reputation for user-rights by using this to hunt down illegal file sharers, and it's possible that Google will put huge limits and allow other services to compete, but those are both pretty long shots if you think it through and don't know anything relevant that I don't.

This changes things? (2, Interesting)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30743962)

p2p users are targeted heavily by the anti piracy groups because p2p users are comprised largly by individuals with very shallow pockets.Google could potentially even the playing field here.

...Not to say that Google is doing it for this reason...or that piracy is justified. Just saying a company with this much influence could change the media industry's approach on combatting illegal activities.

Re:This changes things? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744332)

p2p users are targeted heavily by the anti piracy groups because p2p users are comprised largly by individuals with very shallow pockets. Google could potentially even the playing field here.

Avatar grossed $1 billion dollars in less than three weeks.

Tell me again about the level playing field.

Tell me again why Google wants to become Ground Zero for every fifty megaton bomb the rights holders choose to drop.

Re:This changes things? (2, Insightful)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745444)

Perhaps those p2p users could simply purchase those movies that they wish to have. Or, even, get a Netflix account. But I suppose that 'Fighting the Man' has a better ring to it.

Let's hope for djvu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744000)

right now it still says
"Sorry, we do not currently support 'djvu' files"
All my textbooks are in djvu format and a google viewer for them would be great!

Re:Let's hope for djvu (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744022)

I wouldn't expect viewers, this sounds like just a file hosting service, with certain formats viewable online. It doesn't necessarily mean that any format you upload will be viewable online.

About split (4, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744006)

> host all file types with a limit of 250 MB,

Can we just use split to store larger files ?

split -a 5 -b 250000000 bigfile

Re:About split (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744074)

If google offers 250 MB a file where quantity of files is limitless then it would be quite good. But you'll probably be going against your overall gmail quota.

Re:About split (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744750)

My gmail quota is currently 7.4 GB which is about 29 X a 250MB files.

Note that I barely use Google for anything, nobody writes to my gmail account, I use it mostly for testing when I ever use it.

Re:About split (2, Informative)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744098)

Zip, Rar or some of file compression program will split files will work also.

Re:About split (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744704)

> Zip, Rar or some of file compression program will split files will work also.

tar -zc bigfile | split -a 5 -b 250000000 -

Re:About split (4, Funny)

mweather (1089505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745136)

You must work for a hard drive manufacturer.
Here's the correct way to do it:
tar -zc bigfile | split -a 5 -b 262144000 -

Re:About split (3, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745258)

Nope, sorry, I do this on purpose to insure I never go above the actual limit. Who knows, maybe a hard drive manufacturer implemented the quota scheme ;-))

I am fully aware that my files will be slightly less than 250MB and this is exactly what I want ;-))

Nice try although...

Re:About split (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744850)

How would our non-linux users put the file back together?

For that matter, how would a Linux user put it together? dd?

Re:About split (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744874)

> For that matter, how would a Linux user put it together? dd?

man cat

Re:About split (1)

isj (453011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744908)

For that matter, how would a Linux user put it together? dd?
cat

Re:About split (2, Informative)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745116)

assuming that you are in an empty directory:

split -a 5 -b 250000000 sourcedir/bigfile

cat * > bigfile

in Windows:

type * > bigfile

Gzipped version:

tar -zc sourcedir/bigfile | split -a 5 -b 250000000 -

cat * | tar -zt 1> bigfile

P.S. I use -a 5 to backup entire disk images in 50MB files, -a 2 is usually the default. 2 will support up to 26*26 = 676 files in your archive.

Re:About split (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745206)

cat * | tar -zx 1> bigfile

t only list the content of the archive ;-))

Re:About split (1)

rfugger (923317) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745076)

Google docs even lets you organize split files in a folder and share the whole lot together. Death to rapidshare!

First Question, (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744008)

When do we start getting to download Fansubs from google too?

Re:First Question, (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744108)

Sucks for the HD releases that are 350MB per episode though...have to get better compression for them.

Re:First Question, (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744110)

Torrents are easier.

Re:First Question, (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744144)

IRC is quicker.
=P

Re:First Question, (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744672)

Torrents? IRC? USENET? Sorry guys, cant hear you over my 10Gbit fxp transer. * measures e-cock *

Re:First Question, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744746)

Knock knock. Who's there? Fedex. Fedex who? Fedex with a truck full of 2TB hard disks.

Re:First Question, (1)

epp_b (944299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744216)

Torrents are easier.

Torrents are slower.

with limit of 250MB (-1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744014)

...nothing of the stuff mentioned in summary will happen...

Re:with limit of 250MB (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744186)

How does a per-file limit of 250MB stop any of the mentioned things from happening?

Re:with limit of 250MB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30745342)

I remember sharing Quake 1 with my friends via ~50 1.44" floppy discs.

Microsoft has something similar (4, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744034)

Microsoft is moving into the ad-supported online hosting biz with SkyDrive [live.com] . Looking at my SkyDrive right now, it tells me I have 24.99GB available space (I'm not really using it for anything). Among other uses, once Office 2010 ships, SkyDrive will be a portal to the Office 2010 Web Apps. If you upload Office documents to your SkyDrive, you will be able to click on them and view/edit them in your browser, without owning your own copy of Office.

Re:Microsoft has something similar (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744358)

Heh, It would take 25 GB of free storage just to lure me back to Windows Live. Since I don't have enough time to look into it now, could you answer some basic questions for us such as:
  • Requirements. Besides having a Windows live account, is there other software needed(IN short, will it work with Linux)?
  • File upload limit. 1 TiB capacity is useless if the upload limit is only 5MiB per file.
  • Other gotchas...like, is it a trial service where you have to haggle with a foreign call center to opt-out before they start charging you 50 bucks a month?
  • Etc.

Re:Microsoft has something similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744454)

Upload size is limited to 50 MB per file

Re:Microsoft has something similar (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744578)

Hah! Suckers!
Mod me down you shall, mod me down...

Re:Microsoft has something similar (3, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744682)

As the AC below said, files can be up to 50MB each (for now... I see no reason why Microsoft wouldn't up it to compete with Google).

It will work on Linux. It works fine with Firefox, and it even works on Chrome (even though Chrome is not officially supported). I think pretty much any standards-compliant browser should work (though I seem to remember I might have had a problem or two with Konqueror, even though Safari is one of the officially-supported browsers). IE users get a fancier upload tool via ActiveX, but that seems to be about it.

At present, it's sort of a "trial" in the sense that everything is pretty much still in beta. But Microsoft's stated intent is for everything to be ad-supported. I think the idea is to get initial revenue from ad sales, then hook customers into Microsoft's commercial desktop software.

On the downside, I didn't think the SkyDrive UI was all that impressive. Google Docs changes things up by presenting files as a chronological series based on what you've accessed most recently, kind of like an email inbox. SkyDrive tries to simulate the files-and-folders desktop paradigm, but it's really just for show. You don't have any of the flexibility of being able to drag and drop files, for example. It's a lot of clicking and waiting for page refreshes.

The UI for the Office Web Apps really is very slick, though, and they also seem to work fine with any modern, standards-compliant browser. (And that means not with IE6 -- it's not supported.)

Re:Microsoft has something similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744692)

Requirements - just a Live ID - the website works fine with Linux and Firefox.

Upload limit - I believe it's 50 MB per file max. They'll probably raise it to match Google's 250 MB limit if people complain.

Other gotchas - not really...if you want to control access, the recipient has to have a Live ID. If you want to make it public, they don't. No trial, no cost, just free with advertisements.

Re:Microsoft has something similar (1)

david.given (6740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744914)

Other gotchas - not really...if you want to control access, the recipient has to have a Live ID. If you want to make it public, they don't. No trial, no cost, just free with advertisements.

To me the big gotcha is that there's no access API. I'd love to use SkyDrive as an online backup service --- with encrypted files, natch --- but there's just no way of getting stuff there other than via the web interface.

What I'd really like is one of these services to adopt rsync, but it ain't going to happen...

This will also enable terrorists (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744056)

Before evil google did this evil thing, terrorists were forced to use rar to chunk their nefarious plans into sizes small enough for email attachments, or use horrible file sharing services like rapidshare which only makes them hate the west even more. Now their plans for global sharia will be made easier thanks to their malevolent brothers-in-arms over at google.

I hope those evil doers over at live workspace don't read this news because sharepoint is an even eviler tool for pirates and malware authors and satan himself.

docs is getting some microsoft office flaws (3, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744160)

As in "bugs or missing features that are existing now for years without being addressed."

The biggest shortcoming I see is a lack of proper versioning. Docs will save every stupid edit you make every few seconds creating hundreds and hundreds of divergent versions. Utterly useless for tracking changes in drafts over time. The solution is fairly simple. You get a button up at the top that tells you which draft you're in. Click on it and you can spawn a new draft. So you start with your rough draft. When that's complete, you say "new draft" and here's your second draft. You can invite people to comment on a draft by draft basis. If you'd like, you could saw "I'm spawning off Joe's draft since he's going to make edits." If he's not going to edit, just comment, then you can let him have a go at the second draft. Then you can move on to your third draft, fourth, etc.

At this point in time the only solution is to manually create a new file called second draft, third draft, keep them all in the project folder and then manually compare changes. Kind of defeats the aweseomeness of docs here. Of the features I use in Word, this is the only place where Word has docs beat. Of course, nobody I know can use the comments and revisioning tools worth a damn so I'm not really getting proper mileage out of them. *sigh*

Re:docs is getting some microsoft office flaws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744642)

SharePoint has and more in baked-in. Minor versions are treated as drafts (usually visible only by editors) and major versions are published to all. Best of all you can edit the documents right from with-in Word, Excel, or whatever. It's actually pretty awesome and imho much more usable than Google Docs for business.

Down with Rapidshare! (1)

epp_b (944299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744172)

I read "paid file sharing will die", yelped a heartfelt cheer and forgot to read the rest.

So this is like Ubuntu One? (1, Informative)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744200)

Except 1/8th the size?

Re:So this is like Ubuntu One? (1)

Rebelgecko (893016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745048)

Ubuntu One is 2GB total. This service is 1/8 of the size per file . Presumably, you will be able to have more than 8 files uploaded.

thwarting of malware and piracy by Google brains? (4, Insightful)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744232)

Knowing Google, I'm sure they have actually thought about the repercussions of allowing all types of documents to be hosted/uploaded, or paving the way for mal/spy/shitware and alike or piracy. As much as everyone is going to look at the negatives, I"m sure Google has developed some sort of scalable trolling application to look for patterns or heuristics for that type of thing. After all, is Google not the king of the hill when it comes to data mining, pilfering, trends, habits, popularity of all of us already?

.exe (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744236)

Does this include executables? New Malware channels INDEED. I know a whole lot of people who wouldn't know what an extension is, besides pushing back a deadline.

Goodbye Backpack. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744304)

Combined with Manymoon [google.com] this looks like a serious contender to pricey online project management services like Backpack [backpackit.com] . Lack of artificial user limits is what makes Google strategy such an attractive proposition.

Re:Goodbye Backpack. (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745030)

If you were using Backpack for project management, you were doing it wrong. Basecamp is designed for that.

I can see this being useful (1)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744346)

I can see this being a very useful tool in the future. We currently use an internally developed tool to allow our users to upload and share large files. Unfortunately, as with anything, we've run into a few external user issues with them running an older version of Flash or their virus scanner interfering with the file download. Of course, the external user likes to blame us in these cases. What the Google brand can do for us is provide us a standard. It's a brand that people trust, and one that we can point to as a trusted standard. Now, if an external user has issues, we can say "Hey. It's Google. I don't know what you're doing wrong."

Looks like I get to start playing the testing game soon.

Skydrive (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744446)

Guess that's Google's answer to things like Microsoft's Skydrive.

Wonder if it will be blocked from work too.. :(

I already paid for my bandwidth. (1)

sourICE (1480471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744526)

We already pay for our bandwidth usage through our phone/fiber companies. Why should I have to pay somebody else money to upload a file to a friend or even thousands of friends(in this day in age of torrents)?

Re:I already paid for my bandwidth. (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744898)

Because there's no such thing as free data storage.

Re:I already paid for my bandwidth. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744918)

> Why should I have to pay somebody else money to upload a file to a friend...

You don't. Just connect to your friend's server and upload away.

applications (3, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744556)

TFA says:

More importantly, instead of carrying a USB drive, you can now use Google Docs as a more convenient option for accessing your files on different computers.

I know very few people who use USB keychain drives for this kind of thing. I teach physics lab courses, and when students need to bring home a spreadsheets or something, they just email it to themselves. I don't think the size limit is the main reason they don't use flash drives. One reason is that they don't know in advance that they're going to need one. The other is that email is less of a hassle.

If you're getting up into the amounts of data that can't go in an email attachment, then you probably need a full-fledged file synchronization utility like unison [upenn.edu] anyway. Unison is smart about recognizing data that haven't changed, and it also takes away the hassle and confusion that people experience with trying to keep straight all the different versions of files they have when they try to use a keychain drive for this. If you don't have a decent tool like this, then mirroring large amounts of data is likely to be slow, labor-intensive, and error-prone. TFA says:

In addition to uploading any file into Google Docs, our Google Apps Premier Edition customers will be able to seamlessly upload many files at once and sync them with their desktop in real time using third party applications.

Presumably the "Premier Edition" part means you'll have to pay. So for the majority of applications where you have this much data, Google will give you convenience or zero cost, but not both.

One exception I can think of is that this could be a nice, convenient way to make off-site backups of a certain amount of personal data (that novel you've been writing, ...) in case of fire or earthquake.

Re:applications (2, Informative)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745042)

In addition to uploading any file into Google Docs, our Google Apps Premier Edition customers will be able to seamlessly upload many files at once and sync them with their desktop in real time using third party applications.

Presumably the "Premier Edition" part means you'll have to pay. So for the majority of applications where you have this much data, Google will give you convenience or zero cost, but not both.

Premier Edition is $50 USD per user per year.

Pricing info (5, Informative)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744670)

It doesn't seem that anyone else commenting on the article has noticed this yet, but if you click through to the Google Docs blog it has the pricing info:

http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2010/01/upload-and-store-your-files-in-cloud.html [blogspot.com]

Instead of emailing files to yourself, which is particularly difficult with large files, you can upload to Google Docs any file up to 250 MB. You'll have 1 GB of free storage for files you don't convert into one of the Google Docs formats (i.e. Google documents, spreadsheets, and presentations), and if you need more space, you can buy additional storage for $0.25 per GB per year. This makes it easy to backup more of your key files online, from large graphics and raw photos to unedited home videos taken on your smartphone. You might even be able to replace the USB drive you reserved for those files that are too big to send over email.

Combined with shared folders, you can store, organize, and collaborate on files more easily using Google Docs. For example, if you are in a club or PTA working on large graphic files for posters or a newsletter, you can upload them to a shared folder for collaborators to view, download, and print.

Again, after the 1gb limit, that $0.25 per gb-yr. By comparison, Amazon S3 is $0.15*12=$1.80 per gb-yr [amazon.com] , almost an order of magnitude more expensive.

Re:Pricing info (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745084)

Not bad. I wonder what the rates for bandwidth will be, though. If we're talking about file sharing, that would probably be the greatest cost. But if anybody's getting a good deal on bandwidth, it's Google.

Re:Pricing info (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745276)

Hopefully this will embarrass online storage services such as S3 into offering more reasonable prices. I've always through they were overpriced, and this seems to confirm it.

S3 is not unreasonable (1)

CdBee (742846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745526)

I store my most valuable 20-gb or so online in S3 via JungleDisk (a software client that provides a WebDAV local front-end to S3 and a web-hosted WebDAV and http access)

For the peace of mind, about 4 dollars a month (including upload/download charges) isnt bad. I find it worthwhile especially as my Nokia phone can directly access Jungledisk's online webdav server

I won't drop Jungledisk, but I'll use this too. Multiple redundancy can never be a bad thing except possibly in a marriage.

Re:Pricing info (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30745530)

And you're not even taking into account the bandwidth costs associated with Amazon S3. Google Docs has no bandwidth cost (yet).

Amazon S3 is an amazing service, but it's quite expensive on a $/GB-YEAR ratio, especially once transfer costs are added in. $0.25/GB-YEAR is quite reasonable.

Summary is troll. (0)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744728)

>newer vulnerabilities and malware distribution channels...

As if Rapidshare and the rest *aren't* copyright infringement, vulnerability, and malware distribution channels.

Unjustified smear, anyone?

>Will decimate the paid file sharing market

No, it won't. There will always be a market for paid file hosting, especially for files larger than 250MB.

Summary is troll.

Keep trollin', trollin' trollin'
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep those articles movin' Slashdot!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just sum 'em up and post 'em,
Soon the bullshit'll be high and wide.
By my heart's calculatin'
Mod points will be flyin',
Karma will be higher by and by.

Sum 'em up, post 'em up,
Mod 'em up, mod 'em down,
Move 'em on, head 'em out Slashdot!
Cut the bait, bait the hook
Reel it in, let it out,
Set the hook, reel 'em in Slashdot!

Trollin', Trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Slashdot!

Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Though the quality's fallin'
Keep them articles rollin'
Slashdot!
Eds on crack and cheetos
Logic's long gone, we know!
All the things I'm missin',
Fox News and Palin,
Are waiting for me at another website.

Sum 'em up, post 'em up,
Mod 'em up, mod 'em down,
Move 'em on, head 'em out Slashdot!
Cut the bait, bait the hook
Reel 'em in, let 'em out,
Set the hook, reel 'em in Slashdot!

Trollin', Trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Slashdot!

Keep trollin', trollin' trollin'
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them articles movin'
Slashdot!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just sum 'em up and post 'em,
Soon the bullshit'll be high and wide.
By my heart's calculatin'
Mod points will be flyin',
Karma will be higher by and by.

Slashdot!
Slashdot!

Torrent plz? (2, Interesting)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744756)

will now become "Gdoc plz?"

Why Would Any Company Use This? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30744790)

Are there ANY companies that are stupid enough to load their spreadsheets into google docs?
Is anyone out there using google docs in the workplace? If so, why?
Are pointy haired bosses sending emails with google docs links in them instead of attachments?

If anyone wants to upload their drafts of SEC filings or preliminary earnings reports to my
FTP server for easy sharing within their companies, I'm happy to volunteer my server.

FUSE (4, Interesting)

johnkzin (917611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30744856)

How long before we see a FUSE plugin that lets you treat this like an NFS server?
(or did I miss it, and one already exists?)

And let us edit them? (1)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30745486)

It would be nice if they started building editors for various file formats, so through google docs we could collaboratively do some video editing, programming, photo editing, etc

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?