Dropbox (2gb for free, 50gb for $99/yr, 100gb for $199/yr)
Maybe this is too obvious to mention, but Dropbox rules.
Sync files between your computers and smartphone. Share photo albums and specific files with the public. Very easy to use. Way better for project management than emailing different versions of files back and forth a million times. Recover files you deleted weeks ago. Also see: 62 things you can do with Dropbox.
For those concerned about the security of storing your information online Spider Oak is a service worth considering. Their zero-knowledge policy ensure that—by design—they cannot access the data you store on their servers. Your data is encrypted on your computer and then sent to their servers (they don’t have access to your private key).
Benefits:
Securely store your data online, and have it sync between computers.
Allows you to select which folders to backup/sync.
Less expensive then Dropbox. Really great student rates.
Allows over 100 GB. This allows me to use it as an offsite backup for all my files (except video).
Downsides:
Not as user friendly. UI needs some work.
Sharing options well behind Dropbox.
No apps/services integrate with it.
Upload process seems slower, though I haven’t actually tested this.
Given the downsides, I use Spider Oak for backup and sync exclusively while also using a free 2 GB Dropbox account to take advantage of all it’s awesomeness.
I’m a hacker/computer security expert. I use DropBox for low sensitivity files (it sync’s far faster, and has better integration) and SpiderOak for more sensitive data.
With Dropbox’s announcement of new plans and pricing, two of the benefits I listed above for SpiderOak are no longer true. Pricing is now equal (not considering SpiderOak’s student rates) and Dropbox has introduced 200 GB and 500 GB plans.
Additionally using symlinks one can add any folder to their Dropbox (note I’ve done this on OS X, I can’t speak to whether this is possible on Windows).
That leaves SpiderOak with it’s security benefits. However as this thread from the Dropbox forum details, there are many solution to this problem, one possibly coming from Dropbox itself!
An alternate security solution is to encrypt sensitive files—I use a combination of Dropbox, Truecrypt, and KeePass for most things. There’s still a few things that I keep local and encrypt, simply because they’re especially sensitive.
Ironically, for me, paying for Dropbox is a really bad idea. One of my main uses for Dropbox is sharing files—copyrighted files, usually, especially with the Research page’s various requests that I have fulfilled. Knocking out one Dropbox account knocks out all its files, so I want to spread files over as many Dropbox accounts as possible. Paying for extra space just increases the temptation to put a great many eggs in the one basket.
(Of course, no actual problems have popped up over the past years I’ve shared files on Dropbox, so there’s no point in having too many accounts; right now, I just shift Dropbox accounts every year or two. It is a real problem, though. My favorite Vocaloid music site, mikudb.com, recently saw its main uploaders’ account on MediaFire disabled, which broke the availability of ~1300 albums.)
EDIT: these days I don’t use Dropbox as heavily as I used to, as I am more comfortable with hosting files on my own website: the bandwidth bills are not as bad as I feared, and experience has shown thus far that I don’t need to worry about legal reprisals as long as I’m not dumb about it. I still split my uploads over 10 accounts, though, and rotate.
One method I use to share files quickly and anonymously is to use DropCanvas ( http://www.dropcanvas.com ). It has a simple interface, allows direct linking, and does not require signing up.
Why wouldn’t you use actual version control software, like svn or git?
Probably because Luke isn’t a programmer and many of the people he works with would get confused by actual version control. Too much version control just gets in the way for some purposes.
Mind you the primary dropbox folder that he has shared with me (for LaTeX publishing stuff) actually contains a git repository which I use to share with the other publishing guys. I find that the extra complexity involved with git over dropbox is definitely worthwhile for things like working on templates but perhaps less useful for the routine stuff. Then for some use cases dropbox’s (lack of) access control options just can’t work for us.
Probably because Luke isn’t a programmer and many of the people he works with would get confused by actual version control.
This is Luke, he should teach them version control. Perhaps a simple system like svn would be better than git (but it requires a dedicated server...)
The simple functionality alone—diff/merge tools, merge tracking, logs, tagging/branching, retrieving old revisions—is very empowering for any text-based collaboration. Programmers invented it, but that’s no reason nonprogrammers shouldn’t use it.
I haven’t used dropbox beyond a brief trial a year ago, but I seem to remember it has a primitive version tracking system built in. If it does, it’s sure to be much worse than e.g. svn with a good gui like Tortoise. (Those who do not understand, are condemned to reinvent a poor copy...) People who use that, especially, should switch to a real VCS.
Git GUIs are considered harmful, but… they really make sense to non-programmers. This is probably the best way to introduce non-programmers; they can understand an app that does version control, but asking them to understand the terminal environment AND command line git might be too much.
Sounds more like a consideration specific to badly designed git GUIs :-)
I’ve never used a git GUI, only the CLI. I imagine a simple GUI as being built along the lines of “someone doesn’t like the CLI, or maybe someone is using Windows and has no cli, so let’s wrap every cli git command in an exactly equivalent GUI command that just happens to run in a window and not in a terminal.”
Fine, but that problem shouldn’t be somehow specific to the GUI and irrelevant to the CLI. The purpose of having a GUI isn’t to teach people git or hide unfamiliar concepts, it’s to make correct operations more convenient to people who for whatever reason don’t want a CLI in their workflow.
You can get some 5.2GB free with dropbox—first they have a few small”quests” giving 0.2 extra. But then they also gave you up to 3GB more if you synced photos from mobile to dropbox (did this then removed the photos to get extra non-picture storage space).
And also referrals: you can get up to 500MB extra space for each person you get to sign up, with a limit of 16GB extra!
(Speaking of which, if anyone wants to sign up to dropbox and is feeling generous, this is my referral link :) (I’m sure there are others who’d like a bit of extra space too.))
My opinion after experimenting with many of the aforementioned services? You can get potentially infinite storage using InSync and simultaneously managing as many Google Drive accounts as you like on the same computer.
InSync’s biggest problem is that once it finishes the beta stage, you will have to pay a one-time fee to continue using it. I think it is worth it given the infinite amount of space it offers.
An alternative would be Dropbox. You start with only 2GB, which is too little, but there are many ways for you to get free space. You can invite friends, play Dropquests, upload camera pictures and participate in public beta testing. I now have 26 GB, all for free.
Dropbox is currently more reliable. I’ve had Google Drive lose a file, fail to move a file from one folder to another, and crash multiple times on my Windows machine.
From what I understand, this isn’t actually the case. When Google Drive was first release there was a lot of buzz about it’s terms, but this comparison with the terms of other similar services shows that there isn’t much difference between any of the major online backup/sync service providers.
I looked at both Dropbox and SugarSync for unattended backup purposes (5GB free for sugarsync vs 2GB for dropbox) and went with Sugarsync, because I did not want to think about copying stuff to my dropbox. Plus it already had an android client at the time I evaluated the options, so all my mobile data I care about would automagically appear on my desktop. The downside for Linux users is that it requires an alpha-quality add-on.
Dropbox (2gb for free, 50gb for $99/yr, 100gb for $199/yr)
Maybe this is too obvious to mention, but Dropbox rules.
Sync files between your computers and smartphone. Share photo albums and specific files with the public. Very easy to use. Way better for project management than emailing different versions of files back and forth a million times. Recover files you deleted weeks ago. Also see: 62 things you can do with Dropbox.
For those concerned about the security of storing your information online Spider Oak is a service worth considering. Their zero-knowledge policy ensure that—by design—they cannot access the data you store on their servers. Your data is encrypted on your computer and then sent to their servers (they don’t have access to your private key).
Benefits:
Securely store your data online, and have it sync between computers.
Allows you to select which folders to backup/sync.
Less expensive then Dropbox. Really great student rates.
Allows over 100 GB. This allows me to use it as an offsite backup for all my files (except video).
Downsides:
Not as user friendly. UI needs some work.
Sharing options well behind Dropbox.
No apps/services integrate with it.
Upload process seems slower, though I haven’t actually tested this.
Given the downsides, I use Spider Oak for backup and sync exclusively while also using a free 2 GB Dropbox account to take advantage of all it’s awesomeness.
I’m a hacker/computer security expert. I use DropBox for low sensitivity files (it sync’s far faster, and has better integration) and SpiderOak for more sensitive data.
With Dropbox’s announcement of new plans and pricing, two of the benefits I listed above for SpiderOak are no longer true. Pricing is now equal (not considering SpiderOak’s student rates) and Dropbox has introduced 200 GB and 500 GB plans.
Additionally using symlinks one can add any folder to their Dropbox (note I’ve done this on OS X, I can’t speak to whether this is possible on Windows).
That leaves SpiderOak with it’s security benefits. However as this thread from the Dropbox forum details, there are many solution to this problem, one possibly coming from Dropbox itself!
As such, I’ve made the switch back to Dropbox.
An alternate security solution is to encrypt sensitive files—I use a combination of Dropbox, Truecrypt, and KeePass for most things. There’s still a few things that I keep local and encrypt, simply because they’re especially sensitive.
Very true.
You may find this thread on the Dropbox forums interesting.
Ironically, for me, paying for Dropbox is a really bad idea. One of my main uses for Dropbox is sharing files—copyrighted files, usually, especially with the Research page’s various requests that I have fulfilled. Knocking out one Dropbox account knocks out all its files, so I want to spread files over as many Dropbox accounts as possible. Paying for extra space just increases the temptation to put a great many eggs in the one basket.
(Of course, no actual problems have popped up over the past years I’ve shared files on Dropbox, so there’s no point in having too many accounts; right now, I just shift Dropbox accounts every year or two. It is a real problem, though. My favorite Vocaloid music site, mikudb.com, recently saw its main uploaders’ account on MediaFire disabled, which broke the availability of ~1300 albums.)
EDIT: these days I don’t use Dropbox as heavily as I used to, as I am more comfortable with hosting files on my own website: the bandwidth bills are not as bad as I feared, and experience has shown thus far that I don’t need to worry about legal reprisals as long as I’m not dumb about it. I still split my uploads over 10 accounts, though, and rotate.
One method I use to share files quickly and anonymously is to use DropCanvas ( http://www.dropcanvas.com ). It has a simple interface, allows direct linking, and does not require signing up.
Why wouldn’t you use actual version control software, like svn or git?
Probably because Luke isn’t a programmer and many of the people he works with would get confused by actual version control. Too much version control just gets in the way for some purposes.
Mind you the primary dropbox folder that he has shared with me (for LaTeX publishing stuff) actually contains a git repository which I use to share with the other publishing guys. I find that the extra complexity involved with git over dropbox is definitely worthwhile for things like working on templates but perhaps less useful for the routine stuff. Then for some use cases dropbox’s (lack of) access control options just can’t work for us.
This is Luke, he should teach them version control. Perhaps a simple system like svn would be better than git (but it requires a dedicated server...)
The simple functionality alone—diff/merge tools, merge tracking, logs, tagging/branching, retrieving old revisions—is very empowering for any text-based collaboration. Programmers invented it, but that’s no reason nonprogrammers shouldn’t use it.
I haven’t used dropbox beyond a brief trial a year ago, but I seem to remember it has a primitive version tracking system built in. If it does, it’s sure to be much worse than e.g. svn with a good gui like Tortoise. (Those who do not understand, are condemned to reinvent a poor copy...) People who use that, especially, should switch to a real VCS.
Git GUIs are considered harmful, but… they really make sense to non-programmers. This is probably the best way to introduce non-programmers; they can understand an app that does version control, but asking them to understand the terminal environment AND command line git might be too much.
Why are they considered harmful, more so than any GUI for a complex CLI program is harmful? Are there considerations specific to git here?
Git-specific consideration. GUIs tend to wrap up a bunch of low-level actions and abstract them; you can end up doing strange things.
Sounds more like a consideration specific to badly designed git GUIs :-)
I’ve never used a git GUI, only the CLI. I imagine a simple GUI as being built along the lines of “someone doesn’t like the CLI, or maybe someone is using Windows and has no cli, so let’s wrap every cli git command in an exactly equivalent GUI command that just happens to run in a window and not in a terminal.”
Oh, the problem is that concepts like “squash” and “fast-forward merge” and “remote ref” just don’t make a lot of sense immediately.
Fine, but that problem shouldn’t be somehow specific to the GUI and irrelevant to the CLI. The purpose of having a GUI isn’t to teach people git or hide unfamiliar concepts, it’s to make correct operations more convenient to people who for whatever reason don’t want a CLI in their workflow.
You can get some 5.2GB free with dropbox—first they have a few small”quests” giving 0.2 extra. But then they also gave you up to 3GB more if you synced photos from mobile to dropbox (did this then removed the photos to get extra non-picture storage space).
And also referrals: you can get up to 500MB extra space for each person you get to sign up, with a limit of 16GB extra!
(Speaking of which, if anyone wants to sign up to dropbox and is feeling generous, this is my referral link :) (I’m sure there are others who’d like a bit of extra space too.))
I was actually half-surprised Luke didn’t use his own referral link.
This is the best roundup I found on cloud storage so far: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2954960/google-drive-dropbox-skydrive-sugarsync-cloud-storage-competition
My opinion after experimenting with many of the aforementioned services? You can get potentially infinite storage using InSync and simultaneously managing as many Google Drive accounts as you like on the same computer.
InSync’s biggest problem is that once it finishes the beta stage, you will have to pay a one-time fee to continue using it. I think it is worth it given the infinite amount of space it offers.
An alternative would be Dropbox. You start with only 2GB, which is too little, but there are many ways for you to get free space. You can invite friends, play Dropquests, upload camera pictures and participate in public beta testing. I now have 26 GB, all for free.
Recent competitor from Google: https://drive.google.com/start
Dropbox is currently more reliable. I’ve had Google Drive lose a file, fail to move a file from one folder to another, and crash multiple times on my Windows machine.
Google is cheaper per gigabyte, but in my opinion is not as convenient to use (yet).
Google drive terms of use are horrid for now.
From what I understand, this isn’t actually the case. When Google Drive was first release there was a lot of buzz about it’s terms, but this comparison with the terms of other similar services shows that there isn’t much difference between any of the major online backup/sync service providers.
Note: Dropbox just doubled their storage at each price tier. (100GB for $99/yr, 200GB for $199/yr, 500GB for $499/yr)
I looked at both Dropbox and SugarSync for unattended backup purposes (5GB free for sugarsync vs 2GB for dropbox) and went with Sugarsync, because I did not want to think about copying stuff to my dropbox. Plus it already had an android client at the time I evaluated the options, so all my mobile data I care about would automagically appear on my desktop. The downside for Linux users is that it requires an alpha-quality add-on.
Back when I used SugarSync for lots of data, the client software kept crashing. It was also harder to setup.