Linux to the rescue! Again!
Just install Linux Mint. There's no problem with cloud storage as the shareware OS doesn't support that. Simples!
Microsoft's changes to its OneDrive personal cloud storage prices reflect badly on the company, and have left users angry and bewildered. Most people have at least 30GB of free OneDrive storage: 15GB as standard, and an additional 15GB bonus easily obtained by setting the camera roll on a mobile device to use OneDrive for …
Just install Linux Mint. There's no problem with cloud storage as the shareware OS doesn't support that. Simples!
"There's no problem with cloud storage as the shareware OS doesn't support that."
Your prejudices are showing again. Apart from the fact that you don't know the huge difference between OSS & shareware take a look at https://owncloud.org/ https://kolab.org/overview https://www.dropbox.com/install?os=lnx for a start.
I wonder what OS Dropbox's servers run on. And AWS...
"Just install Linux Mint. Simples!"
Your second sentence is utter tripe. Not least an OS shouldn't ever 'support cloud storage' - it's the OS, not the desktop environment. See here: https://www.google.co.uk/?q=define:+operating+system
The moment you start bundling 'cloud storage support' and other rubbish into the OS, you've got crapware.
"Not least an OS shouldn't ever 'support cloud storage'"
It depends what you mean by "support" and, indeed, "cloud storage".
In a lot of cases the latter just means some form of remote synchronisation. ownCloud and Kolab are both OSS S/W which provide Linux clients for this and Dropbox is one of several commercial products which do the same. As the OS supports these clients then it's reasonable to describe it as supporting this style of cloud storage as a client in the same way as saying it supports a web browser or an office suite. And don't forget older flavours of syncing such as rsync.
At a more fundamental level of support, and taking "cloud storage" to mean remote storage in general, Linux has both NFS and CIFS available at kernel level which can let a client integrate remote file systems directly into its own tree.
Looking at it from the other side any Linux system can be set up to offer ownCloud, Kolab, NFS and/or CIFS as a service. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dropbox service was also running on top of Linux - in fact I'd be surprised to hear that it wasn't. Linux can also host VMs and containers to provide other cloud services.
The OP's claim was complete nonsense typical of the once common but now almost silent crowd of Microsoft boosters.
I believe that The Cloud runs on various flavors of Linux.
In any case, even Microsoft has admitted that Azure does NOT run on Windows, so if Microsoft isn't doing it, why would anyone else ?
> Microsoft has admitted that Azure does NOT run on Windows
The simples setup for the likes of you (Troll):
Put two large drives on the Linux box, raid them using mdadm, set up SSH (With keys) and open port 22 on your router, add some DynDNS service... stir, enjoy your instant cloud storage.
Or install OpenCloud if you prefer a gui-like thing f***er.
"and open port 22 on your router"
I suggest a very diff. port. I've had just one attempt in 10 years on my non-standard port - every little helps.
"In any case, even Microsoft has admitted that Azure does NOT run on Windows, so if Microsoft isn't doing it, why would anyone else ?"
Azure runs on Hyper-V Server - a dedicated hypervisor layer similar to VMware ESXi. Hyper-V currently has about 30% of the commercial hypervisor market, and is completely free for the fully featured version. Windows is not required, but Hyper-V can be installed as part of a Windows OS if preferred.
(As compared to Linux virtualisation where as far as am aware, you can only run a hypervisor as a bolt on to the full Linux OS)
This is the second time i have seen a cloud storage provider bait and switch ....
Also for the love of god can someone tell these companies what the definition of unlimited is ...
If they'll do it on cloud; then where else?
Anyone still feel safe with MS file formats?
Anyone still feel safe with an OS that can change on a whim? (an MS whim of course, not yours)
I still email stuff to myself periodically - not a bad method when you have a small number of important files.
1. Company gives away storage for free
2. Couple of people figure out a way to abuse the system / technology ("Awesome, I can store 75TB online at absolutely no cost to me..... Im sure no one else has to pay for this, right?")
3. Company adjust policy to close loophole
4. Community loses their shit, demanding more free stuff.
For earlier examples, see:
- Online Backup
- DSL Broadband packages
- 0% Interest credit cards with no fee
Company adjust policy to close loophole
Adjusting policy would be to stop using the word 'unlimited' wrongly and replace it with 'up to', good policy would be not to punish existing users for the piss take of the few.
At the moment I have 40 GBs of Onedrive, 10GBs loyalty (my email address is still hotmail), 15GBs photo's & 15GBs email - I guess (plus whatever on an O365 work account which I don't use). I barely use 3GBs in total so in truth it won't even affect me adversely, but if they take my 'loyalty' reward away then out goes my trust in them as a company to keep their word. If I ever do need a cloudy business solution I will look at Google or Amazon (probably Amazon as Google seems to also have constant changes of mind, almost on a whim).
Good business mantra: The customer is always right!
"but if they take my 'loyalty' reward away"
They won't. Read the FAQ - the last sentence states that all promotions that you already have will stay.
If MSFT had announced a 1TB cap for office subscribers with options for higher capacity there wouldn't be as much fuss. Its announcing the reductions in the free service at the same time as if the 75TB users had anything at all to do with the free service that is so foolish. A case study for how to poison a brand that cost billions to build.
If the small print says all the promotions you have will stay, what is all the fuss about?
If you were given stuff (I was given 25GB (15 + 10 loyalty I think) + 15GB (Camera roll) + 200GB (Surface purchase- two years), then you get to keep it (at least as long as they said).
I presume the 'unlimited' wasn't a promotion per se. I am surprised there wasn't small print at the time along the usual lines of "Fair use policy applies", the same as so-called unlimited broadband. Albeit a bit different since the storage stays there and MS have to keeps multiple copies of vast quantities of data.
I suppose they could technically keep their word and put the enormous data on tape/disc in archives with slow retrieval (at least latency-wise, it would still keep up with most peoples' DL speeds).
The thing is, you can have it both ways, OneDrive is just a directory. If you PC has a HDD or larger SSD then all of your OneDrive is also on your disc (or vice-versa) and File History or good old backup makes a regular copy to an external hard drive. File History has the added benefit of keeping all the versions of changed files, albeit without the elegance of a version control system.
So, there are three copies if you count the OneDrive as a copy. You can access files elsewhere if you have a connection, all of them since you do not know if you might need that picture or spreadsheet (or just want rather than need) but while maintaining total ownership and control of a real copy locally.
And, as an added bonus, those people with lots of photos get the added ability to search them by tags. I was looking for a photo of a piece of paper I took a some stage and clicked on the 'text' tag, which reduced the photo count to a reasonable eyeball search.
Furthermore, any text itself is searchable (a pub name for example or a museum pic with a description plate or a car number plate).
You can also present the photos such that they are separated by location as well as time which can be useful too.
Finally, you can search for 'car', 'house' or 'people' and similar generic terms and it will find pictures with those items in them, pretty well from my experience. This even works on the phone which is by far the most useful reason to have it since scrolling and searching massive photo collections can be a pain. I do create folders etc. myself but it is surprisingly easy to not bother - I do it mainly to share.
As for sharing, any arbitrary search result or manual selection can be shared as is. Even if the photos are subsequently moved or renamed, they stay shared.
These are all things which a straight backup cannot do although I suppose there may be apps they will not be as easy to use for sure since I can take a picture, it uploads automatically, it is tagged and searched for text without any effort at all from me and can be shared trivially - the data I send is a link, they download it from the servers.
If you share via the server you must run one to do so, then your upload capability is supplying that bandwidth, especially if it is a popular video. You also have to maintain the share system, knowing who has what etc. So what you probably do is actually have a service you use to share, dropbox etc. You copy the files required to that place as required and share afterward just like normal cloud users.
Unlimited - "not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent."
So pedantically, if are using only 75TB of unlimited, then by definition you still have an unlimited amount of space available, those using 1G are using the same percentage as those using 75TB.
In the real world of course that's clearly nonsense, but on planet Marketing, Maths and English skills seem entirely optional.
I recall a Barclay's bank marketing advisor insisting that having two loans at 6% interest was the same as having one at 12%, so their consolidation deal at 8% was better, despite having a worked example shown to them.
I have never liked the thought of using "the cloud". Especially as my ONLY source of backup.
Between photos and home movies I have over 400gb of data. Plus all the other stuff I want to store. My outlook files are over 2gb..
I have had a NAS drive for two years (2 bay) and I have replaced it recently with a 4bay drive. This provides some redundancy (Raid 5 anyone) and the data is available to anyone at home. I can also access it away from home (A home cloud)
Being at the mercy (No other way of describing it) of a cloud provider who can increase the cost, reduce the storaged amount or remove the service at any time is NOT my idea of secure. And managing large amounts of data over the internet are never a good idea anyway (asymetic data).
My backups are all local, I treasure my Photos and have three seperate copies of them. as they can NEVER be replaced.
"Good business mantra: The customer is always right!"
Nope, the customer is nearly never right and often they lie to try and get you to give them, free replacements, service they have not paid for etc.
However it is often good business to let them think they have got something for nothing out of you, or have pulled the wool over your eyes; call me a cynic, if you must :-)
It never was *your* storage. However many times it bites them, people never get the hang of the first rule of free stuff; there is no free stuff.
Missed that one, my account always said 1T. I guess I'm not going to miss that then...
Cutting the free storage is a stupid decision, on the other hand.
If you went over 1Tb it automagically changed to 2Tb.
For me personally, it's a matter of trust. I can't help wondering what else they will change given the chance. I have a single Office 2016 license purchased through my employer. It was nice to have more, but I'll live.
I've been around long enough to remember the kind of *** that MS used to pull when they could get away with it. I've also never forgiven them over Technet Plus. I'm sick and tired of making a personal investment of time and money in MS products just to be ****ed over on a whim.
The only thing I can do is vote with my wallet. I also made it very clear why I was closing my account.
Probably some executives at MS thought they were still enjoying the near-monopoly of old. News: they don't, at least as far as cloud and mobile is concerned. Unlike with the Windows desktop OS, jumping ship to an alternate cloud provider (or just back to local storage) is easy.
Someone else's computer to do with as they like. Remember that.
Even a blind man can see it coming.
... the first hit is free.
What I find peculiar is the attempt to blame a handful of over-enthusiastic people whose only error was to believe that unlimited meant what it said.
I don't use any form of cloud storage for anything at all important. I was quite pleased with the idea of unlimited storage as part of office 365, as a sensible admission of the obvious, but have actually used (checks up) around 2Mb of it so far.
But without actually causing me any harm at all M$ have completely undermine my recently recovered trust in them, W10, and Office, as sensible ways to use a computer. It has taken me many years to be comfortable using them again, and after a few months they have kicked me firmly in the bollocks.
I have alternatives.
Some of you seem surprised by this?
This is Microsoft's normal policy of offering something low cost then either discontinuing it in favor of another higher cost product or just adding %% to the cost. and talking up currency movements. You don't think the free W10 with could tried in everywhere is core to this strategy?
Open you eyes for deity's sake.
I haven't followed this too much but I do recall the blurb at one point saying something like:
This is the last Windows version.
Any time you 'buy' Windows (or get it free, or have an OEM copy on a laptop), it will be updated with new features and bug fixes from time to time.
At some point this will stop happening and you will then have the option to 'buy' the new 'version' (and its subsequent updates).
So, just like Windows of old, you buy Windows 7, it gets service packs and then they stop, you get only security updates, then they stop too.
How they will frame the 'Your system is old, no more updates unless you give us more money' I do not know.
It is also entirely possible (and reasonable) for them to offer 'updates for ever, just pay 3.99/month'. This happens with cars ('You'll not own the car!'). Personally, I find car rental crazy but I see an awful lot of it.
I will be the same with Windows, I have never bought a real copy, always gotten the OEM version with new hardware, five years or so for each iteration of a new laptop.
In about five years, they may stop supporting this Windows 10, I will stay with the 'version' it has then or buy a new computer, just like always.
If five years turns into one year (or two even), then I will start to be annoyed.
OK, I won't gloat too much.
I've often stated my opposition to clouds, even in the face of vehement opposition (one of my comments from last month on this subject was downvoted quite a bit due to my oversimplification of what clouds actually are) but yet again we see that clouds have their limits.
There's no such thing as "unlimited". Everything has a limit somewhere. Consider that a lot of the reason behind terms such as "cloud storage", "unlimited" and "free" are used by marketing types to sucker in those people who like the idea of getting something for as near to nothing as can possibly be achieved. The term "bait and switch" has been used by quite a few people and it's nothing to be surprised at.
The server farms they use to provide these clouds may be huge but at the end of the day they are just a bunch of clustered servers with lots of storage and that has a limit. If anyone is surprised at what Microsoft are doing, then they really need to get a clue.
But while I have always stated that I shall never use a cloud for anything unless I know that I can trust the provider with its security, putting my files at the mercy of a company that will suddenly change the conditions of storage purely because somebody else is taking the piss or, as it seems here, the company didn't plan its capacity properly (any ITIL folk here will know what I mean) isn't going to happen.
"Nor is it clear why a few busy Office 365 customers necessitate such severe changes to the free offering for users in general."
Obviously, Microsoft ran out of the needed fairy dust and unicorn farts to make their "all you can eat for free" storage model work. But it's understandable they were caught out by this, since they weren't around back in 2000 when the initial Internet bubble went "pop". Those were the bad old days when Internet sites started to realize they needed to make a profit at some point, and they were spending a pantload of money on high-end server hardware and connectivity. Nope, Microsoft didn't live through any of that, so there's no way they could have known it wouldn't work this time either...
So, the rapacious, greed-ridden, ribbon-laden monstrosity that is Micro$oft lays aside its sheep guise and reveals for all and sundry its true nature.
First Secure Audio Path, and Protected Media Path, accompanied by unlimited DRM snuffling.
Next the BigBrother-ish monitoring afforded by the X-Box and all its associated ills and ilk.
Next Twisted-Sister Vista, with all its new monitoring and data snaffing, not to mention the accompanying strangulation-ribbon being added to the office suite.
Then, Windows7 with a considerably-less-entertaining-than-ET phone home fetish.
Finally (erm, probably not), Windoze 10 with its various lockdowns (UEFI, AMT, ring -2, PMP, HDCP, SecureBoot, TPM, etc., etc.) and incessant, interminable, intrusive telemetry.
M$, you're a shill for Hollywierd, the TLAs worldwide, and the computing industry's answer to Shelob the spider.
Isn't it about time you went back to your roots and did something useful for a change?
Many years ago there was a radio commercial for something-or-other that had one fellow reciting a mantra "Pay more, get less". That was really funny.
What you are doing, isn't.
Hey thumbdowner, Eadon, is that you?
I suspect this is yet another cheap support for Nadella. Why the hell do you say its Microsoft's mistake? Its Nadella who claimed to be cloud-first, mobile-first rubbish and now you don't have any sense even to call him out for this. Westerners would pimp out any indian garbage as its a pro at that.
That won't work for a long time, so count your days. This is carefully written in a way as though to criticize but actually to protect nadella and blame any and all failures on Microsoft. If there is any auccess , am sure the same sheep flock would 'praise' nadella. Disgusting.
MS says I still have 40GB
The internet and the cloud is about content. Content is the blood in the veins of the internet. Why should there be millions of copies of the same data?
If you have videos that are not pirated, then post them to YouTube and earn some money.
If you have music or audio then get on-board with iTunes, YouTube or the many others promoting audio content and make some money.
Would you put everyone's else's photos in your photo album's at home? Would you play someone else's video during a family union? So why are you storing someone other's content?
HATs off to MS for not participating in the pirating of content and pushing people to the most appropriate way of managing digital content.
Most importantly, if you are a content consumer, then you shouldn't be storing copyright data. Then you shouldn't be saving other's data.
If you want to be a digital pack rat or a thief then go and buy an external hard drive.
MS and other online storage providers gives you plenty of space for legal and ethical activities.
Sorry pirates, no treasure here.
Personally, I am intelligent enough and experienced enough to NOT want cloud storage.
I don't want my critical items floating through the air where any hacker can snatch them if they get lucky enough to do so. HELLO, you've read how credit card readers by walk-by crooks lift the CC's information from the card you are using for a second so they can later use your money for their own personal pleasure, haven't you? So, why would anyone be okay with bank number, friends lists, job information, your family's photos flying through the air?
That is the least of why I hate the Cloud. Besides it being a playing field for hackers to steal money, identity, set up all sort of illegal activities (rape, spying, kidnapping, future criminal plans of learning delicate company information, etc) it is also the stealer of personal files from your own computer because it 1] it always reverts to holding everything hostage on its server (making it time consuming to downing everything back into the computer at once quickly and efficiently) should you need a reformat, and 2] it is related to a washer and dryer which swallows up one sock at a time. Files go missing for no reason - they just disappear, kaput.
I have tried to rid my computer of iCloud but it keeps coming back and sneaking its way in despite the fact that I am too intelligent to keep full account numbers in my Quicken, nor do I download from my back, not do I keep any other financial items within my computer. Occasionally I may order from a reliable online source, but I never keep CC numbers on their site - I'd rather enter it each time, or else it is linked with my secondary bank account that has less than $50.00 in it at any given time.
So, please ---- KILL iCLOUD and make computing easier for all of us! After all, who needs to save all that garbage people collect, because you can't take it with you when you die anyway. (tic)
"wrecked its cloud strategy"
Absolutely wrong. "Perfected its cloud strategy" would be better
Microsoft policy of "Cloud first, Mobile first" gives the game away if the "Windows 10 everywhere" policy is also considered. Microsoft can't charge (or at least not significantly) for Windows on mobile as that would force the cost of the phone too high. As in theory both phones and PCs will be running the same OS, realistically Microsoft then can't charge for the PC operating system - at least not for OEM builds.
As customer devices become smaller, cheaper (tablets, phones) and effectively disposable media viewing devices, charging licence fees per device becomes unviable.
So they HAVE to make their money elsewhere, and storage is the only realistic option.
In effect, Microsoft are changing their charging model from a per-client basis, to a per-server basis......and as multiple clients can access one "server" (in the sense that one online storage account is a personal server) then for many users it could work out as a fairer way to do things. The alternative is paying a £100 windows licence for every PC/phone/tablet you own.
Expect the next stage to be that manufacturers are offered free OEM Windows licences for ALL cloud-enabled devices.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018