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!

GmailFS - The Google File System

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the never-meant-to-be dept.

Data Storage 429

Scott Granneman writes "Looking to use that new Gmail account for something really innovative? How about combining it with a brand new filesystem for Linux? Then GmailFS might be the answer: 'GmailFS provides a mountable Linux filesystem which uses your Gmail account as its storage medium. ... GmailFS supports most file operations such as read, write, open, close, stat, symlink, link, unlink, truncate and rename.'"

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

guh? (1)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101617)

But i thought google only supported ie!

No-works fine for Firefox across all OSes.. (0, Redundant)

Arivia (783328) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101658)

well, except for that occasional problem with Firefox on Linux-that is very accessible through their amazingly simple and (dare I say it?)helpful, help pages. In short-no.

IE is the only working browser. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101668)

I decided to download and run Firefox after reading about it here. The very FIRST page I try to view with it comes up blank. It displays fine on MSIE.

http://www.c4isr.com/oley/

I won't even bother with Opera any more. (call it Oopspera). It liked to scramble pages like a jigsaw puzzle.

Re:IE is the only working browser. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101688)

Blank... right...
If you'd care to scroll down a screen, you'd see that it renders it fine.

That's one big bug in firefox! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101699)

You are right! It is there! Someone forgot to move the "arbitrarily hide web page by starting it well below bottom margin" bug from Firefox!

I forgot to scroll, I admit it. I guess from years of using a working browser, I didn't think to hit the scroll bar just to SEE the page.

Re:That's one big bug in firefox! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101733)

I second this.

Site not accessible with Firefox.

Sad, but true.

That's why I always refer to the Mozilla suite as "fucking gay communist bullshit", especially when one of my employees suggests to use it sitewide. I mean, Internet Explorer is the standard for all web protocols, so why change it? I credit the efforts of the former Netscape employees who really try to use their time of unemployment to create something useful, but they just keep on missing the needs of their target audience. Perhaps Netscape could provide them with their newest code instead of letting them just reuse their obsolete Netscape 4.x code. Who knows.

This leaves us waiting for Windows Longhorn.

why? (-1, Troll)

dJOEK (66178) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101619)

do we really need this?

Re:why? (5, Insightful)

Tongo (644233) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101626)

Why do men climb mountains, why do they explore new lands, why do they explore space or the depths of the oceans. Mankind does it because it's there (or can be done).

Re:why? (0, Troll)

JNighthawk (769575) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101635)

Do you hear those sirens? Because that is a COP OUT ANSWER!

Really. I'm curious, because if somebody is doing this, there's something wrong with the Windows and/or Linux filesystems. What's the matter?

Re:why? (3, Funny)

CableModemSniper (556285) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101760)

Theres lots of things wrong with the filesystems availible for Windows and Linux, I'm sure. But even if that was a reason for this, this doesn't fix it. (Since it's just a Unix like FS that happens to use GMail as the storage device as opposed to a physical drive). I'm sure the coder didn't say to himself, "You know what's wrong with file-systems today? They aren't implemented as a slow screen-scrapping interface to webmail!". It was probably more along the lines of "Crap, I only have enough HDD space left for some Python scripts and FUSE...hmm GMail gives me a gig..."

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

dJOEK (66178) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101640)

there are far more elegant ways to do network storage.

people are just blinded by that Gigabyte figure.

would you use a pop3 box to store your files? no.
would you go climbing the mount everest barefoot just because you can? no.

Re:why? (4, Interesting)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101670)

I imagine this could work like the anonymous writeable /incoming ftp directories used to for pirates -- get an account, load it up, and distribute the login name and password.

Not a usage that Google or the GmailFS designer had in mind for the service, I'll bet, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody started doing this if the technique for using Google as free network storage became popular.

It's quite unlikely Google will embrace GmailFS because they're probably not counting on having a significant chunk of their users maxing out their 1GB storage. It's a neat hack, though.

Re:why? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101722)

When you reach more than 100MB of 'your' storage space, Gmail contacts you and asks to remove some data, even if (in our case) it were legitimate hi-res surface-scans of metal structures, entirely educational.

I confess that I assumed they would do something like that. 1GB per quasi-anonymous, non-profit user is too ridiculous for them to keep it up.

hi Bender ! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101732)

"it were legitimate hi-res surface-scans of metal structures, entirely educational."

That's a nice way to describe robot pr0n, Bender. Way to go!

Re:why? (2, Interesting)

Eric604 (798298) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101656)

my first thought was "this is stupid" but maybe it's handy when sharing semi-private files.

begging for it... (-1, Flamebait)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101620)

In other news, google sues software developer for violation of DMCA

This seems horribly abusive of Google. (5, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101622)

They've already made it plain they don't want third-party email account checkers; now you're going to subject them to transient file storage addons?

They're supporters of Linux. Somehow, it doesn't seem like a very "on the spoke" maneuver to aggravate them.

On the spoke. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101641)

Yeah, that's sweet. "on the spoke" That's like "take one for the team" right?
Anyhow, this could be sweet in conjunction with a LiveCD. It's not like you'd be storing vast amounts of data using a LiveCD. You wouldn't clog their system with crap besides personal data and that's what its there for.

Re:On the spoke. . . (4, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101660)

That doesn't matter. What you might well be doing is sucking up more bandwidth than they'd like you to, and as they're their servers, it's their bandwidth and it's their service, if they don't want you to do it, tough on you.

Hell, for that matter, if they just don't want you to do this because they just don't want you to, tough on you; they don't need any reason at all.

Downloading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101650)

No third-party e-mail checkers? Well, I hope Google allows downloading of mail. The big reason that e-mail checkers are needed for Hotmail/etc is that they make it difficult to download e-mail.

Re:This seems horribly abusive of Google. (1)

kaleco (801384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101700)

This may be a moot point - if they don't want their service being used in this way it shouldn't be too difficult for them to prevent people from using Gmail in this way. I agree that it is unlikely that Google will condone this project. Time will tell.

Re:This seems horribly abusive of Google. (2, Funny)

alphan (774661) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101723)

What is the big deal?

now, they can have more data to analyze.

The only thing left is finding an unintrusive way to show google adds for the file system.

Re:This seems horribly abusive of Google. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101758)

They're supporters of Linux. Somehow, it doesn't seem like a very "on the spoke" maneuver to aggravate them.


Please don't confuse this project with Linux. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, at least at this point in time.

You could easily port this script to other platforms.

That said, I'd love to see this integrated into the kernel - then I can store my / filesystem on there, passwords and all. yay :-D

Re:This seems horribly ANAL of Google. (0)

Mulletproof (513805) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101780)

" They've already made it plain they don't want third-party email account checkers; now you're going to subject them to transient file storage addons?"

Good thing they're not an evil company, LOL. the only problem i see here is getting to rely on this system then having Google get pissy again (some would say... "evil") and find yourself locked out from critical easy access to your files.

On that note, why is this horribly abusive of Google? They're the ones giving you the massive amount of free space with virtually unlimited attatchment sizes. It's online storage and danged if this program doesn't use it for exactly that. I'm failing to see the huge, critical difference between sending email back and forth between huge online storage containers and simply using the online storage container for what it is via Linux.

No, it's all control, and it's about time people relaized that Google is just as "evil" as every other company when it comes to that and their company/stock profits. Between crap like this and that stock stunt, that self-claimed good guy image didn't last very long, did it?

Re:This seems horribly abusive of Google. (2, Informative)

perler (80090) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101785)

as stated yesterday, how do you conclude, that a change in login procedure while in beta is meant to exclude third party email checkers - and WHY?! with you pranoia you should apply for a job at intel ;)

PAT

Competing Search Service ! (5, Funny)

Mr Europe (657225) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101624)

Ond now we'll put up a competing internet search service using GMail disk space !

Nice (5, Interesting)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101627)

This is really nice, but as i see it, there are two options:
1) He gets his ass sued to hell
2) He gets a nice job at google ;)

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101715)

Is the third option Profit!! ?

3rd party software (-1, Redundant)

peterprior (319967) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101630)

Will this still work with the new crackdown on third party software [slashdot.org] that Google is undertaking?

Re:3rd party software (5, Informative)

doofusclam (528746) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101665)

If you bothered to read that thread, or actually used gmail yourself, you'd know that they aren't cracking down on third party addons (although they'd be in the rights to do so) - they're just adding captcha style logons in situations where an incorrect password has been entered too many times. It's simply to stop programs brute forcing gmail accounts.

Re:3rd party software (1)

HuckleCom (690630) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101739)

I'm sure they'll pull the plug on this, obviouslly, why shoot yourself in the leg? Gmail's policy states: Modify, adapt, translate, or reverse engineer any portion of the Gmail Service under Prohibited Actions on this pagE: Policies [google.com] Cool concept though - I almost want to try it but I dont want my account to be revoked.

Portable partition (5, Interesting)

kaleco (801384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101632)

This could compliment a knoppix (or any liveCD) CD perfectly.

Re:Portable partition (2, Funny)

kormoc (122955) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101647)

my god, imagine the lag...

Re:Portable partition (2, Interesting)

kaleco (801384) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101751)

It wouln't be as limiting as connecting to my home server which is on a 512kb DSL connection. The upstream is castrated at about 256kb.

If it can be done... (3, Interesting)

KitFox (712780) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101633)

Somebody will do it... Doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. But still, does it accomodate the recent change in the login proceedure [slashdot.org] and possible future changes well?

That's cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101636)

Now google can target their adds at you even better.

Seriously, this is a joke, isn't it?

GoogleOS (4, Funny)

ols22 (553332) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101638)

They're obviously setting themselves up to enter the OS/desktop market.

Re:GoogleOS (0)

nuggetman (242645) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101671)

Yes, obviously, since Google made this addon and all

Re:GoogleOS (1)

ols22 (553332) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101710)

addons, schmaddons They're changing the face of computing and in doing so, they're redefining the OS. There *will* be a major paradigm shift in desktop thinking and google will be a part of it I predict. This is just another 'hint' that they're not *just* concerned with searching...

Re:GoogleOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101718)

I'll restate what the poster up there was trying to say. Seems it was too subtle.

Google DID NOT make this. This DOES NOT hint at any of Google's secret plans to take over the universe.

Great! (5, Funny)

Yeechang Lee (3429) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101645)

Thanks to GmailFS, I can now look forward to seeing the following files when I log into my computer:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ylee ylee 2384 Aug 28 04:25 BUY V1AGRA N0W.pdf
-rw------- 1 ylee ylee 3723 Aug 28 04:39 RE: Stupid weomn cheating.xls
-rw------- 1 ylee ylee 2342 Aug 28 05:05 URGENT RESPONSE NEEDED.doc
Thanks, GmailFS!

It won't eventuate (4, Insightful)

Quick Reply (688867) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101651)

Gmail can allow up to 1GB storage based on the fact that not all email accounts are going to get anywhere near the limit, if GmailFS becomes real, Gmail would become unsustainable (and where is the Ad revenue?) and in summery Google will get very angry and pull the plug in a mean way. On another note, I'm surprised that having direct access to the root folders of a gmail account (like it's a pop/imap account) is even possible.

Re:It won't eventuate (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101674)

and in summery Google will get very angry and pull the plug in a mean way.

But if we get to use it all through the wintery that'll still be useful.

Ads can be integrated into the file system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101767)

Not necessarily. FTP has a "README" that always appears when you enter a directory, so something like this could be added.

Alternately, ads may be encoded into the file system as the following example shows:

-rwr--r-- 1 google google 2384 Aug 28 01:25 [AD] If you want low low prices at fast convenient service, come to QuickMart. View file for more information.
-rwr--r-- 1 google google 2384 Aug 28 01:25 [AD] Slashdot is your friend. View file for more information.
-rw------- 1 ac ac 3723 Aug 28 02:39 Stuff.pdf
-rw------- 1 ac ac 2342 Aug 28 05:15 Mail1.eml

Usefull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101652)

May be not as a traditional filesystem but to mount your mail account remotely. You could keep there some usefull files in order to move from place to place.

Interesting (5, Interesting)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101654)

Of course this is interesting, and shows the talents and ideas that can occur in the world of free/open software.

But Google is a business and they do need to make money and this would be a surefire way for them to lose money (a load of their storage used up, no way to show their adverts, etc) so if anyone seriously used this I can imagine their account disabled.

What I want is google officially creating (or officially blessing the ones that already exist) a gmail notifier app for Mozilla. Technically, using the 3rd party ones that the Mozilla community develop are against their terms of service. They already do an official notifier but it's Windows only - a Mozilla based one would be cross platform.

Re:Interesting (1)

blrr (782741) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101663)

perhaps they just don't want to side with mozilla entirley.

you shouldn't expect them to just endorse mozilla because it's your favourite and it's the IE alternative.

I'm glad they don't take sides.

Re:Interesting (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101791)

perhaps they just don't want to side with mozilla entirley.

you shouldn't expect them to just endorse mozilla because it's your favourite and it's the IE alternative.

I'm glad they don't take sides.


I don't consider this taking sides.

Does meaning writing an app for Windows only mean they're siding with Microsoft? No!

Neither does making the app for mozilla, but with Mozilla you get cross platform support, so Mac, Linux users can benefit. Even BeOS and OS/2 users can use it! Any platform moz or firefox is available for can benefit.

Interesting Hack (1, Redundant)

protektor (63514) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101662)

Interesting hack but I suspect it is soon to become just one thing in a long list of things that Google bans or doesn't allow.

Just because you can... (4, Insightful)

eSims (723865) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101666)

Doesn't mean you should.

An old adage that applies quite well even to the Internet age.

Gmail generates ad revenue, but abusing the account in this way both deprives Google of ad revenue as well and costs them network traffic and will likely increase their disk usage.

This is like that cool neighboor of yours that says you can borrow his tools and then you go over take everything you can find as well as set up a sign in your front lawn for others to join "the fun".

Goolgle won't leave this intact long and I don't blame them a bit.

Re:Just because you can... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101676)

"Just because you can...
Doesn't mean you should. "

Maybe you shouldn't, but that does not mean the rest of us shouldn't.

"but abusing the account in this way both deprives Google of ad revenue"

It is not abuse, and it does not deprive revenue.

" and then you go over take everything you can find as well as set up a sign..."

Thanks for the totally non-apt analogy.

Re:Just because you can... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101740)

If it can be done, someone will do it, regardless if it should be done or not. If Google doesn't want this sort of thing done with GMail, then there is obviously a security hole in GMail. Google should work at fixing the interface to GMail so it can't be used in this way. Any other method - EULAs, legal threats, etc - won't cut it. People will still use the tools, even if they're illegal or in violation of a EULA.

Re:Just because you can... (1)

Cereal Box (4286) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101749)

And I can assume that if Microsoft had 1GB Hotmail accounts that you and other Slashdotters would discourage the use of an equivalent piece of software...?

Innovation (3, Interesting)

digitaltraveller (167469) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101667)

This is great. If google's smart (and they are) they will encourage this and work out a way of benefitting from it.

Question for the kernel hackers: What is the status of FUSE or LUFS? Is there plans on standardising on one of these API's?

The status quo of not having a standardised userspace filesystem interface in the kernel is creating problems. (eg. the incompatible VFS/IOSLAVE hacks that should never have happened)

Dont care if Google dont like it... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101672)

Now this is hacking. An off the wall idea and dare I say it, something uniqu, turned inot reality.

Kids, look at this as an example of what sideways thinking can do. I love it - more because the true spirit of hacking is proven alive, rather than what it does.

Although, that's pretty cool too.

Re:Dont care if Google dont like it... (1)

nblender (741424) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101716)

Not bad. Just over 3 months from idea to implementation. When you want something written, suggest it on slashdot and wait. http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108136&c id=9194177

Possibilities for the future... (3, Interesting)

LoadWB (592248) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101673)

I am pretty sure this is the type of outside use that Google is against. Even so, it may be a useful technology to incorporate INTO Google, as a future Google service, or even to be provided by other services.

Imagine if Google was to provide some sort of remote filesystem storage for ANY OS, perhaps accessible via FTP or other protocol-over-HTTP. A searchable public filestore: not just what people keep in their websites, but the files that they keep... Intentionally made public, of course. The "technology" to do this exists in some forms already.

Yeesh, but then the various corporate execs would have fits because people were storing their favorite MP3s, DVD rips, TV shows, or whatever in their Google Public Share.

If it was not so abusive to FTP servers, I have thought more than once that an FTP search would be pretty cool. Let us say that you are looking for a specific filename that someone has in their anonymous FTP account. Punch it into Google, and blammo!

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what developes from this over the course of the next few years.

Re:Possibilities for the future... (1)

myster0n (216276) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101697)

That would be nice indeed. But how would they generate revenue from that? It wouldn't do google or us any good to have such a service if it causes google to go bankrupt (and therefore deprive us of this service).
We aren't living in the times of the dot com bubble anymore.

Re:Possibilities for the future... (1)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101781)

<i>That would be nice indeed. But how would [Google] generate revenue from [remote file storage]?</i>

<ecode>
$ ls -pX /mnt/gmail

drafts/ etc/ home/ kazaa/
mail/ porn/ spam/ usr/
access.log bookmarks.html restart.sh text.out
~this.listing ~brought.to.you ~by.Pfizer ~Pharmacutical
~makers.of ~the.best ~restorer.of ~your.hard.drive
~Viagra! ~special.trial ~offer.for ~gmail.users
</ecode>

(The <ecode> tag appears not to be working, and my user page is now being subjected to ugly colors. Let us pray somebody at Slashdot notices before the New Year.)

Re:Possibilities for the future... (1)

LoadWB (592248) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101787)

Dunno. I am not a marketter. But I can say that if there is any money to be gained from a service like this, someone will figure it out.

The only thing I can think of right off the top of my head is the search results page could have ads of some nature.

I am pretty much tapped out after that. I think, though, that the possibilities for revenue are just as great as the possibilities for use. The user just needs to be locked into some proprietary Google control, like what the search pages are.

Re:Possibilities for the future... (1)

Hast (24833) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101765)

Like good old Archie? Although I doubt that system is running any longer.

Besides that a lot of "less legal sites" have FTP search. Typically of sites found in IRC channels.

Re:Possibilities for the future... (1)

Fallen_Knight (635373) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101776)

would be a good service to provie, removable drives that appear to be like USB-flash drive, but really read/write to some remote storage.

hmmmmm time to patent!

This could be useful (5, Interesting)

base3 (539820) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101675)

with some nice integrated encryption (saving a manual gpg step) for backup of small, important files.

I would try this . . . (4, Funny)

acceleriter (231439) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101677)

. . . but I have a feelng that fsck would take a long time were Gmail to die during a write :).

I forgot to mention. (-1, Offtopic)

digitaltraveller (167469) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101678)

that Henry Ford was a real asshole wasn't he?

The nerve of him, IGNORING the business plan of the good people at Horse and Buggy Corp.

Just terrible.

Wal-Mart (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101690)

Just like those jerks at Wal-Mart. How dare they charge 1/3 less than K-Mart. There oughta be a law!

Re:I forgot to mention. (-1, Offtopic)

kunudo (773239) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101746)

Actually, Henry Ford was sort of an asshole. [wikipedia.org] But not in the way you said, no.

Booting (4, Funny)

arose (644256) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101679)

Can I boot my computer from my GMail account now?

Assholes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101680)

You've /.'d gmail!!

Booting from gmailfs (2, Insightful)

Hal XP (807364) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101683)

The geek factor aside, I can't see the point of the exercise. I can see the value of PCs which can boot from a network-mounted disk image. Look ma, no hard disk! This clearly can't be done with gmailfs. You need another filesystem (containing, say, your web browser) to access gmailfs. And that makes it no different from having a backup of your ~home or your precious porn collection stored on removable media like a CDR or a USB thumb drive.

And I can already do that by emailing to myself the zip file of my day's work.

why i think it wont affect google(logical arg...) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101685)

1. 10% of gmail users use linux.
2.Most linux users use firefox or mozilla
3.Many users use adblock extension on mozilla(i doubt this)
4.google ads dont reach users anyways(who clicks anyway)
5.Most ppl wont use GmailFs.(I have 80GB hd...why another slow 1 GB)
6.GmailFS is used by 0.1% of gmail users
7.Google doesnt care
8.Profit.................oops
DO no evil google , u will get geek support

yeah like that's going to last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101686)

and who cares if it does?

how about just buying a laptop if you want true portability?

Hmm Weird.. (4, Interesting)

Piranhaa (672441) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101687)

Well it's nothing big really, but I noticed something with the screenshot of the Gmail account and teminal shell. Now, when you're logged into GMail, your space shows up as 1000MB, not 1 *true* gigabyte. However, in the terminal for the Google Filesystem, it shows up as 1024000 MB (1 *true* Gigabyte). Thought that I'd just point this out, as I said, nothing really that big but I noticed it...

Re:Hmm Weird.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101721)

Maybe they give you 1000MB, rather than 1024MB (a gigabyte).

The filesystem shows 1024000kB = 1000MB, so there's no discrepancy.

Re:Hmm Weird.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101725)

check again
1024000 *KB* == 1000 MB
So no it's not a true gig, but the FS figures are right.

Re:Hmm Weird.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101730)

So 1 Gigabyte = 1024 Megabytes.
1 Megabyte = 1000 Kilobytes though? nice maths

Re:Hmm Weird.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101752)

Actually "Gigabyte" means 1,000,000,000 bytes. This is because "giga-" is a metric prefix meaning 1,000,000,000.

1,073,741,824 bytes would be properly described as a "Gibibyte", as per the International Electrotechnical Commission's (IEC's) International Standard. This was adopted in 1998.

http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/calculate/ [t1shopper.com]

Re:Hmm Weird.. (1)

Shinobi (19308) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101790)

Actually, Kilo, Mega, Giga, Tera, Peta etc aren't metric prefixes. Those prefixes are part of the SI system, of which the metric system is just a subsystem.

Re:Hmm Weird.. (2, Informative)

mewphobia (630153) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101763)

If you had ever filled up your gmail account completely (was I the only geek who had to try) you'll see that it can actually hold 102% or 1024MB.

It just says 1000MB at the bottom of the screen :P

Good of you for noticing.

Re:Hmm Weird.. (1)

Shinobi (19308) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101775)

Actually, 1 true standards-compliant Gigabyte is 1000 Megabyte. It's just that the computer industry ignored the standards. And somehow, it seems that so many Open Source weenies who clamor for adherence to accepted standards are keen on ignoring accepted, open standards they don't like.

To reiterate, the whole mess is the fault of the computer scientists etc who broke the adherence to standardized definitions of what Mega, Giga etc signify.

Re:Hmm Weird.. (1)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101792)

Correction:

1000000 Bytes == 1 true GigaByte
1024000 Bytes == some bastard child of a KibiByte and a MegaByte
1073741824 Bytes == 1 true GibiByte

(look it up [wikipedia.org] )

*downs flame retarding suite*

Prepare to get Ggued... (0, Redundant)

zxflash (773348) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101689)

If little apps that rest in your systray that check for gmail every minute or so annoy them (if they aren't made by g)
Gmail Cracks Down on Third-Party Notifiers [slashdot.org]

I'm sure they will be less than pleased with an app that has the potential to waste enormous (and excessive) amounts of bandwidth and disk space...

does it support the "account yanked" operation? (5, Informative)

Daniel Ellard (799842) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101703)

This is a cute hack, but practical? No.

If you want google to paw through all your files and risk having your account yanked for violating the user agreement, feel free to use it... (heck, maybe google won't yank your account in return for the opportunity to index your files...)

Mail-based file systems are nothing new [geocities.com] , nor are http-based file systems [usenix.org] (or WebDAV, for that matter).

Why gMail? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101705)

Sure, it's got 1GB of storage, but so do a whole slew of other services now. Why not hammer Hotmail or Yahoo's servers and leave Google's alone? :)

Backups (3, Insightful)

tpwch (748980) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101707)

I'm going to try to use this thing for backups of my config files. Its the perfect solution for that, can be automated in cron to do daily backups for example (unlike most web-based storage things)

Pah.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101713)

gmx.de offers one Gigabyte of storage for your mail and files. You can access it with konqueror via webdavs://mediacenter.gmx.de/ and you have your encrypted connection to your remote files. An all for free! For a few bucks you get a whole 10 GB of storage. Wohoo!

Useless. Use GMX.net instead (5, Informative)

killbill! (154539) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101719)

GMX [gmx.net] has been offering 1 GB of storage for email and files for free for some time now.
Expand this to 5 GB for 3 EUR / month or 10 GB for 5 EUR / month.

You can also share your uploaded files with other GMX members, and mount your GMX account as a network drive using a WebDAV client (they provide a pre-configured Windows client but you may use another one) .

By the way, their e-mail features totally 0wn any other e-mail service: automated e-mail retrieval from all your other POP-enabled mailboxes, custom filters for automatic redirection, SMS/MMS alerts, up to 15 aliases...

I knew all that time spent learning German at school would come in handy some day! ;p

Re:Useless. Use GMX.net instead (3, Funny)

CableModemSniper (556285) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101743)

Awesome! Now I am glad I took German in HS too.

Traffic? (1)

harmonica (29841) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101772)

Do you know of any traffic limits once you start sharing those 10 GB of data with a lot of "good friends"?

Already Blocked? (1)

tpwch (748980) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101726)

Is this already blocked? I tried it out, this is what I got: File "/usr/lib/python2.3/urllib2.py", line 412, in http_error_default raise HTTPError(req.get_full_url(), code, msg, hdrs, fp) urllib2.HTTPError: HTTP Error 502: Bad Gateway

Google FS (1, Informative)

Barryke (772876) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101729)

There is a Google FS:

http://www.cs.rochester.edu/sosp2003/papers/p125 -g hemawat.pdf

Re:Google FS (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101779)

sorry, working link right here [rochester.edu] (PDF)

In Other News (1)

p0 (740290) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101731)

RIA raids Google's storage room...

Prediction from the earlier GMail notifier FUD (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101734)

The author of the notifier story (who didn't bother to actually link to any real software or provide any evidence) claims that gmail requires "catchas" for login now. Well, I can login to gmail just fine without a captcha. Gmail only seems to show catchas when something appears to be "attacking" their login system.

Big systems need ways to limit abuse, otherwise a single user with a broken perl (or python) script will take down the entire service.

Gmailfs works by sending an email EVERY TIME a file is updated! (from my understanding at least) I predict that users of gmailfs will soon start bitching about their accounts getting shut down after they send a few thousand emails.

How dare google do this! I was just compiling the linux kernel on gmailfs and suddenly my account stopped working! Google sold out to microsoft!

Too Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101741)

I wonder how long it will be until Google becomes an instant messaging service, an ISP, an IRC server, et cetera. Is it good for Google to introduce all of these new features? It is going to take more work to create and maintain these new Google enhancements as they are created.

Linux ? BeOS !! (1)

mmu_man (107529) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101753)

That kind of thing would be much better as a live-query-enabled fs for BeOS/Zeta.

Yet again, Google promotes innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101759)

I'm sure a standard ImapFS would have been possible in the past, but not very cool. Now comes Google, and bam, you have it. Another proof that free software usually starts as a personal hack or just for fun to grow into something useful for everybody.

Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10101774)

Offtopic: He has 6 gmail invites [jones.name] ...can I be his friend.

Just a suggestion... (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101786)

Don't mount it setuid

nice but ... (1)

xlyz (695304) | more than 10 years ago | (#10101797)

with so many free ftp account available, apart from the Gcoolness why should you use it instead?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?