Nautilus will add native support for Google Drive and require an opt-out. Thoughts?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/09/gnome-3-18-google-drive-nautilus-support
Something to keep an eye on with Trisquel 8. That is if you still use the Gnome stack instead of Nemo (Cinnamon) or Caja (MATE) for your file manager.
we should definitely modify Nautilus to at least require a opt in for the Google drive feature
promoting the use of SaSS and Google isn’t good for a distro about software freedom
Google Drive isn't SaaSS. It's online storage. As long as Nautilus is using libre software to access it, and it looks like it is, there's nothing unethical about it. (Of course, you have to run proprietary JavaScript to even set up a Google Drive account, but that has nothing to do with what GNOME is doing.) You should encrypt any files you put on there, though.
And please, don't refer to this as requiring an "opt-out". Nautilus isn't going to in any way use Google Drive without your action. It's just going to enable you to use it like a USB drive if you give GNOME access to your Google account. I and probably many others don't have Google accounts, so this will not even affect most of us. And the few who are affected are only affected positively.
now that i think about it i guess there is nothing bad about using Googles online storage if you encrypt all your files.
and i was incorrect to call it SaaSS
name at domain wrote:
> now that i think about it i guess there is nothing bad about using Googles
> online storage if you encrypt all your files.
The data describing one's uploads (when were transfers made, how large were
the transfers, what IP addresses were involved in the transfer, etc.) could
be quite revealing in the way that the distinction between "metadata" and
"data" can be a bogus distinction with regard to someone's privacy.
With regard to software freedom: Is it possible to use the functionality of
these third-party storage systems without running non-free software?
I imagine that the organizations involved (Google, Microsoft, Box, etc.)
each have a considerable interest in getting their useds[1] to run non-free
code. The non-free code implements the spying. Hence I imagine it's not
hard to get people who aren't accustomed to thinking about software freedom
or privacy to lose both by setting up the service so valuable functionality
is unavailable to the public service API. One could use the service to a
limited degree with exclusively free software but the parts that make the
service truly worth using require giving up far more than these
organizations will fully admit to (and the terms can change with each
update of this non-free code). For instance, uploading and downloading
files works via the API, but editing permissions, or getting a URI to point
anyone to a file/directory one intends to share requires using the website
which means running the non-free Javascript, or requires running an
application.
If non-free code is required to use any part of the service, any
integration with the service can be reasonably seen as a come-on for users
to run the non-free code to fully use the service.
[1] This term "useds" used in the same way Stallman puts it in his most
recent talks to speak of users who have been used by a service proprietor.
Proprietary software is required to create an account in the first place. That's the biggest reason why I don't have a Google account, and I'd wager to guess that's the case for a lot of others here.
i have no choice in the matter with this - i use youtube a lot and i need google accouint for youtube
You wrote:
> i have no choice in the matter with this - i use youtube a lot and i need
> google accouint for youtube
You could choose to use the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/ for
your gratis hosting. archive.org's hosting is more flexible than youtube
has ever been and doesn't have the horrible history of censorship Google
has where some videos aren't available in some regions, or losing access
(even accidentally) ostensibly for copyright reasons. archive.org will let
you host more than just videos, and you can link to anything you upload in
an ordinary HTML5 elements (video, audio, etc.) if you desire since the
files are individually accessible. archive.org will also transcode certain
filetypes for you if you wish. archive.org's download URLs will redirect
users to the file you uploaded.
You can also purchase inexpensive hosting from places like Dreamhost.com
which offers generous bandwidth and storage arrangements. Combining the two
(archive.org and some other hoster) means you can easily host the
multimedia files on archive.org and the rest somewhere else pointing to
archive.org data as needed.
There are better choices out there. You should seek them out instead of
resigning yourself to "having no choice in the matter".
i have no choice in the matter with this - i use youtube a lot and i need google accouint for youtube
I am a translator!
no you don't. you don't **need** a goog account. you **want* to have a goog account. Commenting or uploading videos to youtube is not a *need*.
i use YouTube but what i do is have a link in the descriptions of all the videos(or most of them) to the same video but on my web-server which can be used without any non-free Javascript
so you could do the same thing with your YouTube channel an offer an alternative method
of viewing the videos on say goblinrefuge or your own server that requires no non-free software
i upploaded and comment on the videos....... it is needed -@SuperTramp83
Sounds like a great feature to me-- it'll make Trisquel more approachable to new users.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires