Dropbox hits 1.0(blog.dropbox.com)
blog.dropbox.com
Dropbox hits 1.0
http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=581
71 comments
I think this points out how arbitrary software versioning is. If you ask me, Dropbox is way past a "1.0" release. In honesty, this sounds more like a "Snow Leopard" than a "Cheetah". (meaning that it is under the hood performance tweaks, not features that most people will understand or appreciate).
Isn't this the first non-beta build to have selective sync? Beyond selective sync, the last big upgrade I remember was in the .7 version (iirc) that added LAN sync. I think for most users, the key features have been in the earliest builds. It's great to see a focus on speed and stability over adding new shiny toys.
Selective sync is huge and was the last big hurdle between me paying for Dropbox.
My machines have different storage sizes and yes I do want to sync my 65GB of MP3s between some of them -- but not all.
My machines have different storage sizes and yes I do want to sync my 65GB of MP3s between some of them -- but not all.
I never understood this sort of overblown digital hoarding attitude. Can you shed some light?
Shed some light on the fact that I like music and listen to it while working?
What is an appropriate amount of music in your mind?
What is an appropriate amount of music in your mind?
Music lives in the cloud too.
I have several well-defined Pandora stations. I listen to some other sources as well (WWOZ, bassdrive.com, etc).
I used to argue for hosting my own email, now I don't even "host" my own music.
I have several well-defined Pandora stations. I listen to some other sources as well (WWOZ, bassdrive.com, etc).
I used to argue for hosting my own email, now I don't even "host" my own music.
You're presuming an awful lot of things here.
* that one has a stable high-speed Internet connection.
* that one lives in a country where Pandora and other such services work.
* that the music one listens to can actually be found on Pandora and friends.
* for radio stations, that one likes or is ambivalent to not being in full control of the music one listens to.
* that one likes the web interface these services provide. I don't use a web interface for my e-mail, and I prefer foobar2000 for my music.
I have 40 GB of music (none of which is lossless, so there's a lot of it), a lot of which is relatively obscure (e.g. fewer than 500,000 plays for the artist on last.fm), and I don't see myself getting rid of any of it any time soon.
* that one has a stable high-speed Internet connection.
* that one lives in a country where Pandora and other such services work.
* that the music one listens to can actually be found on Pandora and friends.
* for radio stations, that one likes or is ambivalent to not being in full control of the music one listens to.
* that one likes the web interface these services provide. I don't use a web interface for my e-mail, and I prefer foobar2000 for my music.
I have 40 GB of music (none of which is lossless, so there's a lot of it), a lot of which is relatively obscure (e.g. fewer than 500,000 plays for the artist on last.fm), and I don't see myself getting rid of any of it any time soon.
65gb of mp3s are more useful than 65gb of free space.
Arbitrary from the software developer's point of view, perhaps. But don't forget that *.0s have a clear marketing value.
"But don't forget that *.0s have a clear marketing value."
If everyone starts doing "version marketing", this marketing value will likely eventually erode.
If everyone starts doing "version marketing", this marketing value will likely eventually erode.
I think this points out how arbitrary software versioning is.
I knew of one company that released their products as v3.0 solely for marketing reasons. I wouldn't stoop to that level, but I have realized that by adding new features as minor version releases, I've lost money that I could have made by rolling them into a #.0 release and charging upgrade fees.
I knew of one company that released their products as v3.0 solely for marketing reasons. I wouldn't stoop to that level, but I have realized that by adding new features as minor version releases, I've lost money that I could have made by rolling them into a #.0 release and charging upgrade fees.
Well, hopefully they fixed the infinitely growing cache under 0.7. I have had to shut down Dropbox once a month to clear out the cache (which supposedly would autoclean but never did).
Having to lose 60GB to cache for a 5GB dropbox folder is pretty insane.
Having to lose 60GB to cache for a 5GB dropbox folder is pretty insane.
I find it interesting that they specifically mention "TrueCrypt support". What does this support entail?
Older versions of Dropbox had to re-sync the entire file if a TrueCrypt volume changed. The newer version can sync only the changes... at least, my 500 MB volume now syncs very quickly.
Maybe they're doing something to minimize the amount of data that needs to be transferred when a file inside a TC image is changed.
That's a very good question, since I've been running a TrueCrypted dropbox for quite a while now, with no problems.
Is there no auto-update? I'd prefer not to have to manually update 6 computers with me being lazy and all.
they should make the new installer magically appear in everyone's dropbox.
I guess that would scare some and annoy some more.
The process is extremely heavily tested to make sure it just works.
This is one app that I prefer doesn't auto-update.
For most people it already works great, why rock the boat?
For others, let them control the updates... These are our files, after all!
For most people it already works great, why rock the boat?
For others, let them control the updates... These are our files, after all!
Yes. it auto-updates. http://www.dropbox.com/help/13
The windows version seems to auto-update now. My 1.0.6 has auto updated to 1.0.10
I guess auto-updated was introduced in the betas?
As for my linux ones, don't know. I can't figure out how to get the version string from them.
I guess auto-updated was introduced in the betas?
As for my linux ones, don't know. I can't figure out how to get the version string from them.
On Linux, hovering the mouse over the icon displays the version. It's also greyed-out on the Prefs/General page.
I grab debs directly from their repo, but it's still on 0.7.110. Not that it matters for me.
I grab debs directly from their repo, but it's still on 0.7.110. Not that it matters for me.
The deb version is different from the internal version. The debs are just wrappers, the important binaries get downloaded to ~/.dropbox-dist, and those are auto-updated. If you want to force an auto-update, do this:
$ dropbox stop
$ rm -rf ~/.dropbox-dist
$ dropbox start -iSame version number for me on OSX.
And I'm using the forum-version updater.
Rainbow Shell edition! http://www.chronocompendium.com/Term/Rainbow_Shell.html
A late-90s playstation role-playing game I've never heard of. I like it when codenames trigger a Wikipedia binge.
If you're curious and want to try it out on a modern system, there's an excellent DS version: http://www.amazon.com/Chrono-Trigger-Nintendo-DS/dp/B001E27D...
One of the greatest RPGs of all time, in my opinion.
One of the greatest RPGs of all time, in my opinion.
actually, Chrono Trigger was released for the Super Nintendo. Later they did a more or less 1:1 conversion for the Playstation that added some additional movie sequences (and long loading times).
The game is beautifully done. I'd say that I'm a huge fanboy, even to the effect that most of the servers I'm maintaining are named after some parts and characters of the game :-)
The game is beautifully done. I'd say that I'm a huge fanboy, even to the effect that most of the servers I'm maintaining are named after some parts and characters of the game :-)
It's great to see Selective Sync in there! The only other big feature I'd like to see is an easy way to host several Dropboxes on one computer!
I'd love to see multiple dropboxes, but this would allow people to just host multiple accounts to gain as much space as needed so I can see why they don't do it.
(Unless they made it a paid only feature I suppose)
(Unless they made it a paid only feature I suppose)
Is the Linux version up yet? I couldn't find it on dropbox.com (even though the button says 1.0.10) or by updating my repo.
The new version was not properly linked from the blog post. I had to grab it from the forum.
I should have looked there...
Linux x86_64: http://dl-web.dropbox.com/u/17/dropbox-lnx.x86_64-1.0.10.tar...
Linux x86: http://dl-web.dropbox.com/u/17/dropbox-lnx.x86-1.0.10.tar.gz
Linux x86_64: http://dl-web.dropbox.com/u/17/dropbox-lnx.x86_64-1.0.10.tar...
Linux x86: http://dl-web.dropbox.com/u/17/dropbox-lnx.x86-1.0.10.tar.gz
Appears to be no released debs yet :(
1. Quit Dropbox
2. rm -fr ~/.dropbox-dist
3. Start Dropbox
2. rm -fr ~/.dropbox-dist
3. Start Dropbox
I'm always happy to hear about software getting faster and smaller rather than more bloated and buggy (I had to install Adobe Reader 9.x on my girlfriend's dell Vitsa laptop and I swear it took longer to install than a clean windows installation). Kudos to the Dropbox team!
There are several smaller, lighter, faster PDF viewers. I switched to Foxit Reader for this exact reason.
And for some, Foxit is too crufty, so they opt for Sumatra, or now use Google Chrome.
Indeed. Competition in the PDF viewer space (not to mention browser) is a wonderful thing.
Or Emacs!
I needed Reader because a bank uses a form that can only be submitted online via some weird Reader PDF feature. Believe me, I don't use it for anything else.
They say "Download 1.0.10 for Linux" on the Homepage, and all you get are way outdated packages.
If you don't have 1.0.10 for Linux ready for public consumption, don't advertise it. If it is ready for public consumption, don't hide the download in a forum posting.
If you don't have 1.0.10 for Linux ready for public consumption, don't advertise it. If it is ready for public consumption, don't hide the download in a forum posting.
Linux version auto-updates, force it like this:
$ dropbox stop
$ rm -rf ~/.dropbox-dist
$ dropbox start -iI have a dual boot machine Ubuntu/Windows.
Dropbox installed on both OSes.
The problem "My Dropbox" folder is duplicated for each OS and takes twice as much disk space.
How can this be solved?
How can this be solved?
Meaning you have Dropbox setup on both operating systems and you don't like that the contents of the folder appear twice on your hard drive (on the linux partition and on the Windows one)?
This is pretty much how Dropbox is intended to use so it might be hard to avoid. You can look into selective sync to choose which files get shared to which computers.
This is pretty much how Dropbox is intended to use so it might be hard to avoid. You can look into selective sync to choose which files get shared to which computers.
yes, I can mount my Windows partition on Ubuntu, but I'm not sure Dropbox folder on Ubuntu can be moved to overlay exactly Windows Dropbox ...
Something to think about it for next version of Dropbox.
Something to think about it for next version of Dropbox.
You should try making ~/Dropbox a symbolic link to the Windows Dropbox directory -
ln -s [path to windows directory] ~/Dropbox
ln -s [path to windows directory] ~/Dropbox
Are larger accounts coming anytime soon? I'd kill for 250gb.
JungleDisk might do what you are looking for (not that I know what it is that you are looking for!)
http://www.jungledisk.com/
http://www.jungledisk.com/
There is a lot of upcoming work on pricing and plans.
You can think of 250GB to store in a Dropbox?
If its backups, surely S3 etc would be better suited?
Not that I object to them providing bigger - I certain see no harm for them to do so.
Not that I object to them providing bigger - I certain see no harm for them to do so.
"64KB ought to be enough for everyone"
The actual number for that quote is 640KB, not 64KB—but I get what you were trying to say.
There is no quote, its a rumor - according to Gates anyhow. He claims he never said that.
I sync everything in my system with Dropbox using symlinks. It is really easy to get into the hundreds of GBs when you do that. In the future, Dropbox should make it easier to sync your large data stores.
Ohh, and S3 is way to focuses on utility storage for businesses to be used well for consumers.
Ohh, and S3 is way to focuses on utility storage for businesses to be used well for consumers.
I have 160GB of photos, 100GB of music, 120GB of video, and 2TB of recorded TV.
I have always been wondering why Dropbox needs to have so many threads going on in OS X. Does anyone have an explanation, and does it actually stress the system in any way?
(they just bumped the thread count from 16 to 18 for me in 1.0)
(they just bumped the thread count from 16 to 18 for me in 1.0)
Does it matter if those threads are waiting on various IO objects? Some are likely waiting for file system notifications (e.g., you modified something in your dropbox folder on your mac); others network notifications (modifications on other linked machines). Idle threads maybe consume at worse 1MB of address space (for their stack).
Still no way to set read/write permissions on a user-by-user basis? Makes it difficult to manage my less tech-saavy sales reps when they are always editing and moving files around.
Mmh, Dropbox may be at 1.0, but their site makes me download nautilus-dropbox-0.6.7.tar.bz2. Confusing.
I hope 2.0 is dropbox for your house.
One thing I'd hope Dropbox does well is not get stuck with syncing when a program is running. I had my evernote database file in dropbox folder but it wouldn't syc if evernote is on. It wouldn't sync if I keep my pwsafe on. I now wonder how is it going to handle if I selectively sync Firefox bookmarks. I have to shut down these programs in order for dropbox to sync, which makes no sense.
It might be the fault of those programs. Depending on how they have the file locked, it may be impossible to Dropbox to read it (not to mention potentially dangerous -- how'd you like your Evernote DB to be sync'd mid-way through a save?)
You're right, but evernote auto saves and so does the password safe. I'm not technical but there should be an easy way. Let's just look at this scenario of backing up bookmarks in Firefox. Assuming that Dropbox would react the same way as it currently does, if I were to selectively sync only my bookmarks and if my Firefox is always ON, than how is it going to help me if my dropbox is always stuck in the limbo while I'm browsing the net?
I'm not technical but there should be an easy way.
In what sense are you using the word 'should'?
Technically, if FireFox or Evernote holds it's files "open" or "in use" then it doesn't make sense for other programs to try to use them or to act as if they are going to be in any predictable state.
If you mean should in the sense that the computer industry should have solved this problem, then it is solved for some classes of program - always on database servers still need backups, so you instruct them to put the database in a consistent state, take a copy, and then instruct them to carry on. Previously, you would shut them down, take a backup, then restart them.
But to use that solution, both the database and the backup system have to be extended to support this, and to have it on a normal user system, every program would have to have a way to accept that kind of instruction from outside, and things like Evernote and FireFox haven't been designed with that in mind.
There could have been an easy way, except there wasn't one built in historically and now it's not easy to add one, so there isn't an easy way and wont be in the near future, even though it would be nice if there was. Your best hope is a FireFox plugin and an Evernote update if enough people ask them.
In what sense are you using the word 'should'?
Technically, if FireFox or Evernote holds it's files "open" or "in use" then it doesn't make sense for other programs to try to use them or to act as if they are going to be in any predictable state.
If you mean should in the sense that the computer industry should have solved this problem, then it is solved for some classes of program - always on database servers still need backups, so you instruct them to put the database in a consistent state, take a copy, and then instruct them to carry on. Previously, you would shut them down, take a backup, then restart them.
But to use that solution, both the database and the backup system have to be extended to support this, and to have it on a normal user system, every program would have to have a way to accept that kind of instruction from outside, and things like Evernote and FireFox haven't been designed with that in mind.
There could have been an easy way, except there wasn't one built in historically and now it's not easy to add one, so there isn't an easy way and wont be in the near future, even though it would be nice if there was. Your best hope is a FireFox plugin and an Evernote update if enough people ask them.
That makes sense. I guess Windows was not meant to be on the cloud and I'm asking it to do too much.