Timeline for Dropbox alternatives using a standard protocol
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feb 27, 2015 at 20:49 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSoftRecs/status/571411898119405568 | ||
Feb 27, 2015 at 15:31 | answer | added | WebDrive | timeline score: 1 | |
Sep 1, 2014 at 3:03 | comment | added | Nicolas Raoul♦ | @Caleb: Git is not well suited for managing large binaries, because it wastes time trying to compress them, and it requires, at the very least, 2X + delta space. There are hacks to address that, but they are even more brittle. standardsinsight.com/ieee_company_detail/… I am looking for 40-year perennity here. Git is "de facto" and might change drastically within 20 years. That's my requirement, sorry. | |
May 16, 2014 at 5:31 | comment | added | Caleb | I fail to see the point of this. You want low bandwidth, reliable file synchronization with conflict handling that has open source implementations yet rule out anything based on git? Also ownCloud supports WebDAV which fits your criteria but does not play nearly as well with your other requirements as the osync backend which does not. | |
May 15, 2014 at 7:23 | history | edited | Nicolas Raoul♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
Apr 18, 2014 at 13:06 | comment | added | MvG | I guess SparkelShare using git as its backend also falls short of your “validated protocol” requirement even if it operates over ssh. | |
Apr 17, 2014 at 2:20 | answer | added | Franck Dernoncourt | timeline score: 2 | |
Apr 16, 2014 at 15:59 | answer | added | Franck Dernoncourt | timeline score: 2 | |
Apr 16, 2014 at 11:43 | history | edited | Nicolas Raoul♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
Apr 16, 2014 at 11:43 | answer | added | Nicolas Raoul♦ | timeline score: 1 | |
Apr 16, 2014 at 11:30 | history | edited | Nicolas Raoul♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
Apr 16, 2014 at 11:23 | history | asked | Nicolas Raoul♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |