Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Drive Goes Live

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the another-day-another-cloud-thing dept.

Google 323

lemmen writes "As widely expected, Google Drive has launched officially today. Google Drive is free for the first 5GB, while you can get an upgrade to 25GB for $2.50 a month. They say the service is available for PCs, Macs, Android devices, and soon iOS devices. According to Mercury News, '... the success of Drive will ride largely on whether Google can differentiate its offering from already established fast-growing cloud storage startups that were in the market first, such as Dropbox and Box, as well as Microsoft's SkyDrive service and big consumer media competitors like Apple's iCloud and Amazon's Cloud Drive. ... Existing Google Docs files, the centerpiece of Google's existing cloud storage offering, will move to the Google Drive service once users download apps and install the new service."

cancel ×

323 comments

Forget this garbage (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784505)

Access requires a proprietary client.

Where are open, standard protocols which don't require unvetted Google software to be trusted with power over our computers?

Re:Forget this garbage (4, Insightful)

schitso (2541028) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784525)

You mean like the ones used by Dropbox, SugarSync, and Box?

Oh wait...

Re:Forget this garbage (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784547)

Don't forget SkyDrive. Even MS, who knows Windows inside and out, install a special client and just sync files back and forth like everyone else does.

Re:Forget this garbage (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784793)

They all seem to include drive, box or cloud. Which one will be next? DriveBoxCloud? BoxCloudDrive? CloudDriveBox?

Re:Forget this garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784949)

Let the trademark lawsuits begin!!!

Re:Forget this garbage (3, Funny)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785173)

"Cloud, cloud, drive, spam, box, spam, and drive. It hasn't got much spam in it..."

I was going for a monty python reference, but I'm sure enterprising netizens will find a way to put the other kind of spam on there, too.

Re:Forget this garbage (1)

ski9826 (2541112) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785445)

ManBearPig!

Re:Forget this garbage (4, Informative)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784967)

Don't forget SkyDrive. Even MS, who knows Windows inside and out, install a special client and just sync files back and forth like everyone else does.

If you were to use a virtual filesystem driver or a filesystem filter and stream it directly, you need admin rights to install and you have a very different security profile (because the driver would need to be able to sync from multiple Live accounts across all the profiles on the workstation).

Is it possible to do direct streaming/caching as a mounted drive/directory? Absolutely. I wrote one a few years ago that would attach a WebDAV share onto the system. That's basically how all the various app streaming products work. But its a lousy model for a light-weight consumer system.

Re:Forget this garbage (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785041)

Don't forget SkyDrive. Even MS, who knows Windows inside and out, install a special client and just sync files back and forth like everyone else does.

I still waiting on YouTwitFace.

Re:Forget this garbage (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785045)

Even MS

"Even MS", as in "even MS are using a proprietary client and a non-standardized protocol"? o_O

Re:Forget this garbage (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785101)

so much truth here.

Re:Forget this garbage (-1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784905)

You mean like the ones used by Dropbox, SugarSync, and Box?

Yeah, except it sucks. It appears to only work with Google Docs, and you have to have a Google Apps account AFAICT. I tried signing up with my regular gmail account and it wouldn't let me. It works under my Apps account, but I don't use Docs, so it's not terribly useful for me... Plus, I thought you could store your Docs files online before? I know I've had folks share spreadsheets with me in the past, which were obviously stored somewhere at Google. I don't see how it's different, except being much less useful than its competitors.

FAIL

Re:Forget this garbage (2)

Reapman (740286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785133)

Actually that's all pretty much wrong.. it supports a lot more then Google Docs formated files - in fact even shows thumbnails apparently of a lot of standard file types when browsing. Integration seems to be it's sweet spot.

Don't need an Apps account - works fine on regular users (although it seems to be a phased rollout - it told me that my (Canadian) account will be enabled soon.

Re:Forget this garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784937)

All of those are AFAICT unusable for syncing with my ARM based NAS, yes.

Re:Forget this garbage (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784571)

Bitch bitch bitch.

Re:Forget this garbage (4, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785441)

Ah, thanks for the negative mod, there. Fine, I'll go into more detail: Google didn't just make a client, they're providing the storage, connection, maintenance, etc. It's also for business purposes, not a charity. Of course they want control over the client. If you're going to demand otherwise, you might as well just hold up a sign saying "I want the word Insightful to appear next to my post!"

Re:Forget this garbage (5, Funny)

yog (19073) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784709)

It's free, and it's Google. I would trust Google to be around for a while, to charge decent prices and provide useful tools to access the drive, and also I believe them when they say no human will see my stuff. Some other companies, such as Facebook, I don't trust nearly as much, because they seem to lack Google's commitment to be a trustworthy arbitrator of data.

Re:Forget this garbage (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784799)

and also I believe them when they say no human will see my stuff

I'm increasingly unsure of that. We know they scrape the contents of your emails to decide what ads to show you. We know they keep track of your browsing history as much as they can, and aggregate it across sites.

I'm just not convinced they wouldn't be peeking inside.

Then again, the only stuff I'm going to keep in the cloud is just temporary personal with no real need to have a whole lot of privacy. Anything work related, I simply won't put it into the cloud -- because for anything business confidential, I don't trust the cloud providers at all. And, more importantly, neither does my employer.

Re:Forget this garbage (0)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784907)

and also I believe them when they say no human will see my stuff

I'm increasingly unsure of that. We know they scrape the contents of your emails to decide what ads to show you. We know they keep track of your browsing history as much as they can, and aggregate it across sites.

You do know what a scraper is, right? It's a script. An automated script. One that no human generally deals with (unless it's broken).

Re:Forget this garbage (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785161)

You do know what a scraper is, right? It's a script. An automated script. One that no human generally deals with (unless it's broken).

As a matter of fact, I do. But oddly enough, yesterday's Dilbert cartoon is apropos [dilbert.com] .

If something is scraping it, it is available to be read by humans.

Now, if they tell us that under no circumstances will any entity ever peek into my data then I'd believe it to be secure. Well, even then, I'm not sure I'd "believe" that.

Otherwise, it's being opened and read and cataloged and indexed. I don't care if it's a scraper, or an intern at that point. You may see a magical difference between those, but I don't.

Re:Forget this garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784817)

I believe them when they say no human will see my stuff.

I too believe them when they say that because anything of importance I store there will be encrypted on my end before uploading.

Re:Forget this garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785375)

Assuming Google Drive only sends changes of files as opposed to complete files, then I'm not worried about them seeing my stuff, as I'll just store a couple TrueCrypt containers with keyfiles stored locally [1], and call it done. If they don't send file changes, I'll just create a sparse bundle drive with my Mac and store that, where a change only will affect one, possibly two of the 8MB bands.

Of course, any client running with admin permissions has the ability to log keystrokes and hook into TrueCrypt to find the master key. This doesn't say Google will ever do it, but the capability is there. However, storing a TC volume will keep out people who might get the password, or $DEITY forbid, someone get access to Google's servers and do a dump of people's directories.

[1]: I use keyfiles + a passphrase. This way, someone who copies the volume to be brute forced is not going to be able to find a guessable password, and has to deal with the full 256 bit keyspace.

Re:Forget this garbage (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785075)

The problem goes deeper than that: Unless you go with encryption-on-client(ideally handled by a dedicated security processor, so that the key is never available to the potentially untrustworthy uploader-agent), which is comparatively rare because it breaks handy features like 'access from the web' and deduplication, the cloud storage provider gets to paw through your files by design.

Now, I do have to wonder why Google used a proprietary client(given their history of, for instance, OSSing their updater widget in order to calm people's fears about what it might be up to) when your data will be showing up on their servers in short order anyway, and file transfer over the internet isn't exactly an area of cutting-edge research.(Hi rysnc, how's it going?). One would think that an OSSed client would provide minimal competitive advantage to others, while helping to alleviate the 'our google overlords creep me out' response.

More generally, though, there really isn't a 'clientless'(ie. client is installed by default) option at present. The browser-based upload widgets are hacky as hell and often flake out on larger files, the java/activeX ones are incrementally more reliable but far more demanding and dodgy. FTP is horribly insecure and crotchety, SFTP causes barely a ripple outside a few geek circles. WebDAV seems to have gone nowhere for something like two decades now, some sort of NFS/SMB over VPN is ugly and wouldn't play nicely with many setups... A FUSE based FS would be nice for team linux; but arguably counts as a 'client' and doesn't help the majority of the market much...

I'd certainly trust an OSS client over a closed one; but it's hard to hold the need for a client of some kind against them at the moment.

Re:Forget this garbage (4, Informative)

Marillion (33728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785297)

Until someone writes an FOSS tool based upon https://developers.google.com/drive/v1/reference/ [google.com] The really ambitious ones could write a FUSE layer on top of it.

Good backup for important files (3, Funny)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784513)

My resume, my tax returns, purchased books..... just in case the house burns down & eats my USB backup drive.

Re:Good backup for important files (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784621)

My resume, my tax returns, purchased books..... just in case the house burns down & eats my USB backup drive.

Safer to just buy a fire safe and hide it deep in a closet. Just a liiiiittle bit harder to hack than cloud storage.

Re:Good backup for important files (4, Informative)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785287)

Make sure that safe is fire safe for electronics. Most fire safes brag about keeping the interior to 350F or so for a few hours. Solder flows just above that, so electronics aren't good in them. But some safes are better; you just have to be careful.

Re:Good backup for important files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785353)

Any asshole with an angle grinder can get into your fire safe. Google's data center is more of a known quantity.

Use secure encryption if it makes you feel better. Personally, I securely encrypted my old tax documents, and then forgot the key when I actually needed them. That was a fun lesson. Now I don't bother -- who really gives a fuck about my tax documents?

Re:Good backup for important files (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784625)

Don't forget to encrypt all this before sending it to "the cloud"

Re:Good backup for important files (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784779)

Which is why I rather back it up on something more secure like rsync.net and not give it to someone who wants to scan all my data in order to help themselves target me better with advertising.

Obligatory link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784585)

Re:Obligatory link (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784649)

Yes, I found that.

What I couldn't find was a 'download' link. Anyone...?

Re:Obligatory link (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784683)

Well the android app is "formerly known as google docs" so I already have it installed.

Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784591)

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

No right-click menu in the desktop client, so no grabbing public links etc.

No ability to name the Google Drive folder, only choose its location (the same as dropbox, but a lot of people were hoping for "pick any folder anywhere").

Speed is a bit faster.

Storage prices a lot cheaper ($9.99/month for 200GB vs $9.99 for 50GB on Dropbox).

There is offline access to Google Docs stuff, not tried that yet.

The Windows client is very very very similar to an old Dropbox version - even down to "Selective Sync" within the Google Drive folder.

Android and iOS apps - no Blackberry app yet.

All in all, I haven't come to a conclusion yet - better in some aspects, worse in others. I think a lot of people were expecting a lot more from Google Drive than this offering.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784633)

I was only hoping for SFTP access, from there I'd put a big TrueCrypt container on the drive and not worry about the other problems.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (4, Informative)

yog (19073) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784869)

Perhaps when viewed in isolation, Drive is not that much better than DropBox, but when you add in other Google services such as music.google.com, Google wins. I have 60 gigs of music stored on music.google.com, at zero cost, and I think I can upload about 9,000 more files before I hit the free limit.

Google Picasa allows unlimited storage for images of up to 2048 x 2048 pixels and videos up to 15 minutes. I've only put a few things on Picasa as yet, but I suspect that almost all of my 254 gigs of images and video clips will qualify as free storage at Picasa.

And, of course, as you point out, Google Docs files don't count toward storage, so if you allow them to convert your Word/OO/Libre files over to Docs format, you're all set.

I suspect that for a lot of people, the free 5 gigs in combination with Google's Music and Picasa services will just about cover everything.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785087)

Google Picasa allows unlimited storage for images of up to 2048 x 2048 pixels

Say what now? How do you get that (for free)? My Picasa account still says I'm limited to 1GB storage.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785199)

If you have Google+ there is no limit to images and short videos stored. Not sure if you have to upload them via Google+ though?

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785213)

To answer my own question: I googled it and found that the unlimited storage is for Google+.
But I'm an Anonymous Hero, so it doesn't apply...

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (1)

DdJ (10790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784877)

There is offline access to Google Docs stuff, not tried that yet.

No, there isn't. Not really. They make it look like there is, but there isn't.

What syncs down for these files is just a wrapper containing a URL and some metadata. Double-click on one and you're in the web interface, editing the file online.

Want to prove it to yourself? Then use command-line tools ("cat" on MacOS or "type" on Windows) to dump the contents of the file.

I'm very disappointed.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785031)

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

So I can share my 10GB truecrypt file without it counting against any storage limit?

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785455)

Files shared with you by someone else don't count against your limit. Those file count against the 'someone else's limit.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (1)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785131)

GDrive has an issue with complexity here - they have to map their existing Google Docs service to Windows & Mac file-systems. Dropbox doesn't have that problem so their service is likely to always be easier to use and understand.

Google is generally great at engineering but pretty bad at making things simple, consistent, and understandable, and this is no exception.

For example, about a year ago Google renamed the organizational labels of Google Docs to collections. I was surprised that they would do this without bringing it into line with any of the other Google services, but I figured they must have given it a lot of thought and decided that 'collections' were the best concept for docs.

Today they renamed it again - to 'folders'. Once again, unlike other Google services, and hard to understand because they are not like folders at all.

Trying out GDrive today I find it is full of confusing, inconsistent, and half-working stuff.

Frankly, I'm really disappointed. Google seemed to take their time bringing this to market and I had hoped that meant that they wanted to get it right before releasing it, like Google+ which I think is one of their best efforts. But my initial impression is that it is half-baked.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (2)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785153)

> I think a lot of people were expecting a lot more from Google Drive than this offering.

The reason DropBox won over the existing services (there were many) was simplicity. It's a folder that syncs. That's all people want. More features, more complexity: Microsoft has tried it. Dropbox ate their lunch.

Google is offering a folder that syncs, at a lower price on an ID management platform many people already use. Seems likely to work.

Re:Mixed bag compared to Dropbox (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785211)

Versions count against your storage, trash counts against your storage, Google Docs files do not, shared files do not.

No right-click menu in the desktop client, so no grabbing public links etc.

I installed SkyDrive yesterday because of the recent update and the recent free 25 GB upgrade, but it also lacks the right click functionality in the desktop client so I'm on the verge of just going back to Dropbox. Based on what people such as yourself are saying about Google Drive, it looks like it's even slightly worse than SkyDrive. I wonder whether Google and MS are avoiding the right click public link feature because of a Dropbox patent or whether neither company believes it's useful.

No linux client (5, Informative)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785357)

Dropbox has one, Google Drive doesn't. That's a killer for me.

What Gas Mileage Does It Get? (1, Offtopic)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784595)

This is about Google's self-driving cars, isn't it?

No thanks. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784603)

Yes, let's all give Google more daa about ourselves to mine for their advertiser customers. Wooo... Hoo?

Remember, you are the product not the customer.

Re:No thanks. (4, Informative)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784787)

I will still be able to sleep at night knowing that evil Google has my collection of Warhammer 40k army lists and Dungeons and Dragons character backstories.

If we all do this, maybe then Games Workshop will realize that there's more to 40k than Space Marines and Hasbro will finally get the hint that we all hated 4th edition and think Drizzt can suck the business end of a crossbow.

Just to clarify: I like my privacy, but I understand when my privacy stops being just that; Anything I do not wish to become public I do not make as such.

Re:No thanks. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784921)

>>>Wooo... Hoo?

Hello Lennier. Enjoy being a minbari ranger?

Re:No thanks. (-1, Flamebait)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784985)

Jesus, there are still people like this around?

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785187)

Yes, there are still plenty of 'us' around. How dare anyone have a differing opinion of Google beyond gushing fanboism! Burn them!

Backblaze (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784613)

And here I just bought a backblaze subscription. Although, I assume BB is still cheaper for the 1TB of data I'm backing up currently... unlimited for less than $4/mo.

Free five gigs will be nice for backing up my webserver though.

Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users. (4, Informative)

Simulant (528590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784623)


Yet again.

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785067)

That's because Google doesn't give a shit about people who actually pay for the services. It will come out, eventually. Personally I don't trust Googlers any further than I can throw them.

--
Looking for a software engineer position in Atlanta. Sundar Pichai's incompetence resulted in me losing my job.

Re:Not for "Google Apps for your domain" users. (2)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785077)

Wrong, I have it and it works (at least the Android client and web interface, I don't use Windows or Mac), enable doc in the control panel or request it to the domain admin, it is the same Google Docs permission

The most important question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784629)

but does it run linux? Ideally with FUSE?

Re:The most important question (4, Informative)

Pausanias (681077) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785001)

No. Only Dropbox supports linux, and does it extremely well (though still proprietary).

Dropbox is the first internet company I've been excited about since Google back in 1998. They are run by a bunch of geeks, like Google used to be (MIT though, east coast style leadership vs. west coast/Stanford). Their syncing solution is elegant and just works. The day I tried Dropbox was they day my opinion of "the cloud" changed from a load of bull to actually something worthy of serious attention.

Re:The most important question (3, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785255)

SpiderOak, though a slightly different syncing style, also works on Linux natively. Quite nicely, too.

ADrive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784659)

ADrive offers 50GB of free storage. JFYI. :)

Huge price hike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784669)

Somehow, Google's storage expenses increased six-fold overnight as a result of implementing Drive.

Used to be: 20 GB - $5 80 GB - $20 200 GB - $50 400 GB - $100 1 TB - $256 etc
Now it's: 25 GB - $2.49 100 GB - $4.99 200 GB - $9.99 400 GB - $19.99 1 TB - $49.99

Oh, and those old prices were per year. New rates are per MONTH.

Re:Huge price hike (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784797)

Because 5Gb total space for your email that sits virtually idle all the time and rarely searches back through the history of it (especially if your email client does it for you, like mine) is a very different matter to 5Gb that you intend to fill to the brim and use all the time with all your documents and share with dozens of other people.

Not only in terms of read access, but also in terms of sheer bandwidth to transmit like that (e.g. you CAN send 5Gb to 20 people on a 5Gb account whenever you like, but you can't do that with email!).

Re:Huge price hike (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784929)

Not only in terms of read access, but also in terms of sheer bandwidth to transmit like that (e.g. you CAN send 5Gb to 20 people on a 5Gb account whenever you like, but you can't do that with email!).

What, exactly, stops me from sending 5GB to 1000 people via email?

--
BMO

Re:Huge price hike (2)

eyrieowl (881195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785049)

Of course you can, but c'mon, it's a vastly different model than simply sharing a link directly to a 5GB file. As a practical matter, you're probably unlikely to want to spend the time chunking up 5GB into 10-20MB attachments and then uploading them individually to separate emails to send out...and your 1000 recipients wouldn't thank you either.

Re:Huge price hike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785183)

File attachment size limits?

Re:Huge price hike (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785165)

If I remember, this is also why Google made some quiet, but threatening, noises about what they would do to anybody who made serious use of the cute little 'gmailFS' FUSE projects that are available to slap a filesystem-like structure on top of your Gmail storage space.

It isn't rocket-surgery that Gmail quotas are often largely underused, and the stuff that is used is rich with delicious keywords to be mined any monetized, while bulk file storage brings out the packrat in people, and frequently ends up containing big huge lumps of 'boring-and-probably-pirated-.iso-I-might-need-again' which aren't worth much to the marketdroids...

Re:Huge price hike (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785181)

Clearly, all bits are equal.

Google:Let us know everything else about you (2, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784687)

Yes, I want to upload my financial information, work history, scans of legal documents, and anything else personal from my hard drive and have it spidered by Google. I'm sure they can be trusted. They've been so respectful so far of people's privacy.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you (5, Insightful)

readandburn (825014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784781)

Wouldn't you encrypt your files before uploading them? I would.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784969)

Most people won't know to do so and I see nothing in Google's docs telling you about how you should encrypt before sending to them.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784791)

If you're concerned about privacy check out https://truefriender.com/ disclaimer I built truefriender because we should have easy access to encryption and privacy. I built it and I'm just trying to get the word out now.

you're pathetic (1)

1800maxim (702377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784847)

1. Don't use Google Drive. Who's forcing you to?
2. Why not go with Dropbox? Oh, right, they can do the same crawling through your data.
3. Finally, uhm.. Thought about encrypting with TrueCrypt and uploading the entire encrypted file?

Ahh, but why think proactively about security on a free service but useful service when it's much easier to complain and bitch.

Re:you're pathetic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785139)

1. Don't use Google Drive. Who's forcing you to?

Hey thanks! That's a simple solution to GP's problems... it's surprising that they didn't think of that by themselves!

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784899)

And if you're really that bothered - bugger off and buy a cheap VPS with loads of disk space and roll your own. It takes literally MINUTES to set up with something like FTP or WebDAV and SSH/SSL.

And you can even do full encryption on that storage if you don't even trust your host.

Or you could accept that Google are putting out a product for consumers, not hard-core-tech-geeks that want the ultimate in everything for free.

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785159)

Why would you trust ANY 3rd party host for storing this unencrypted?

Re:Google:Let us know everything else about you (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785191)

In theory, you can sync a TrueCrypt vault.

Anyone tried this yet? Works ok on Dropbox, although the initial upload is a beast (file of noise the size of your storage volume). Afterwards, I think it's only syncing the parts that change. Remote access requires downloading the whole file again.

SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784717)

SkyDrive offers 25GB (max size per file is 100MB) for free. This allows almost all of my files to be stored on the SkyDrive. All of the large files and sensitive documents go in my TC container and synced with Dropbox, which, with all the incentives, is up to 3GB of free space.

What I really wish i could find would be a program that would split a truecrypt container into multiple files of a set size. Then the whole thing would fit on the SkyDrive.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (1)

art123 (309756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784895)

Skydrive just upped the max file size to 300MB when using the browser interface (I can confirm this because I had some PDFs I used to split but I replaced them with single files this week).

I also believe that they allow 2GB file size for the desktop client.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784923)

Ah, to have such a simple life as to fit in 28GB of space.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784941)

I doubt it's helpful, but Apple's disk image encryption (really, the disk images one layer below the encryption) supports that. Sparsebundles automatically work that way; you can also manually create split images of a predefined size (though perhaps only on the command line).

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (2)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784959)

I agree - for once MS did something almost right. 25GB for free is excellent. Personally I would like 1TB for free, but that'll come later...

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (4, Informative)

WolfgangPG (827468) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784973)

This is all out of date as of yesterday. Max file size sync has changed, etc... Please keep up!

Skydrive offers 7GB for Free, Google Drive offers 5GB. Sky Drive offers a max of 100GB of Paid Storage, Google Drive offers 16TB of paid storage.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/04/23/the-next-chapter-for-skydrive-personal-cloud-storage-for-windows-available-anywhere.aspx [msdn.com]
https://apps.live.com/skydrive [live.com]

They need to update their Google compare: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/skydrive/compare [microsoft.com]
Make sure you keep up with the news :)

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785023)

What I really wish i could find would be a program that would split a truecrypt container into multiple files of a set size. Then the whole thing would fit on the SkyDrive.

Do you mean something to just split the container file into pieces for upload and rejoin the files if you need to download them? As opposed to something that would allow TC to treat the split files as one volume?

If that's the case and you're using Windows then Swiss File Knife can do the split/join. It does even more besides that.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (2)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785033)

SkyDrive offers 25GB (max size per file is 100MB) for free. This allows almost all of my files to be stored on the SkyDrive. All of the large files and sensitive documents go in my TC container and synced with Dropbox, which, with all the incentives, is up to 3GB of free space.

What I really wish i could find would be a program that would split a truecrypt container into multiple files of a set size. Then the whole thing would fit on the SkyDrive.

I believe the update to SkyDrive that went live this week now allows 2GB files. And still appears to work via WebDAV, plus has an offline mode.

Re:SkyDrive + Dropbox = Even better (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785093)

One word:
Microsoft.

How many chances am I supposed to give this company? They've let me down almost every time... the earliest being when I tried to multitask in Windows 3 and it hung the system repeatedly (cooperative tasking sucks). Then I tried to play Wing Commander and it refused to run (I ended-up playing Commodore Amiga instead). More recently MS media player refuses to execute half the movies I throw at it. TG for VLC player.

Windows XP is the first stable OS to come out of that company, so I had high hopes they had turned around... but then I experienced Vista. :-( Better to avoid MS as much as possible. I'll use their OS because it's the defacto-standard, but nothing else.

Porn? (3, Funny)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784789)

Does this allow the storage of porn? :)

Re:Porn? (5, Funny)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785071)

you only have 5GB of porn? damn, guess im perverted one :-P

WebDAV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784801)

Why isn't anyone offering support for it?

Or did I miss something?

If I have to FTP another file I may scream....

Re:WebDAV (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39785271)

Looked into this because I thought it was a good idea.. but Webdav in windows is basically non-existant in pre-win7.. and pretty flaky in win 7. So there goes 95% of your market right there.

Sweet (1)

boast (1227952) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784881)

Google Drive is available for:
PC and Mac

Avaliable for PC? Sweet. But, I can't find the AmigaOS link.

They are too lazy to check browser language prefs (5, Interesting)

weeble (50918) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784931)

Google as ever uses reverse IP lookup rather than browser preferences to set the language (language preferences only work once you log in and often even not when logged in). They assume people do not travel and everyone within a particular geographical area will only speak the dominant language.

Re:They are too lazy to check browser language pre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785345)

They've done this as far back as I remember. The correct engineering solution (check the header) is also easier.

Google are terrible engineers, I can't stand any of their products, even the search interface is now a piece of shit.

Google - No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784997)

If the Gmail redesign disaster has shown something it is this: Google will fuck you if they feel like it.

I much prefer Dropbox or any other smaller competitor to Google's arrogance.

Old storage isn't new storage, Screw Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785111)

If you're one of those people who has been paying google for extra storage already, this won't help you. You can keep the old plan, but then you can't have Drive. And no Linux support.

Google owns everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785121)

Don't forget that Google will own everything you upload http://cl.ly/1W2h1A163p0W2A3C0M0q

Dropbox...in a box? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785415)

Forgive me if I just haven't looked hard enough, but I'd love to see a NAS solution that works like Dropbox. I love Dropbox, but I hate having my files on a remote server. Would love to have the backing store under my control.

Maximize your privacy with personal cloud servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785417)

Don't trust any cloud data services. Setup your own network drive on your home network is not difficult at all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...