Yes, I think what’s mentioned with the simplicity and familiarity, ability to fiddle with things quickly, are very desirable properties.
The whole ignore thing is a very interesting side of the backup system when looking closer at it. It’s essential in my mind, it’s the black to white, and as such it deserves very good design and ergonomics.
We’ll see what comes first and when.
I think I wouldn’t use only a new syntax, if that was all. If there are useful capabilities missing, that could make people’s life easier, there is a good reason to go all in with syntax + semantics and make it as good as reasonably could be (since not tied to legacy), because I think changing semantics of standard approach would be confusing. I’m thinking that thing should work as it works, with no surprises.
Fully possible. This is a whole little world to think about It will be interesting when I come to that. Don’t hold back if you have ideas.
I’m so glad you took this on Edward. The reason I decided to piggy back on rclone was to avoid having to create a backup app - because I knew it was very hard to do well - and of course to get all those extras. Good luck with this, I can’t wait to be using it.
I do think a very simple ignore/include syntax will be great for non/less-technical people where you can just say include/exclude directories and ones like “downloads”, “documents” etc. Also wildcards for files like *.txt
This would be a set of rules to feed a more flexible system that more experienced people can directly setup.
One would assume that this would be possible to become an App that the general public can & will use and it would be good to have a simplistic rule set that can either be directly used or pre-processed into the more flexible rule set which could then be modified if one wants to. And of course the user could just modify the actual rule set
I realise this would be a todo item that gets done before a release for the general public.
The main net release in August required for IF qualification can actually be very slimmed down and still qualify. So, when the time comes for that, it’s likely that just a minimum version is actually released for main net, while the more advanced versions are still worked on and available in github. I think that is wise, to make sure the released version is 100% stable.
And for that version, ignore files are unlikely.
But I think they have a fairly high priority after that. So, yeah, a todo item nonetheless!
I mentioned elsewhere that I do a part-time tech support type job now since a few months - while being very new to the whole thing, there have already been several times where I’ve been attending to some small and often seemingly inexplicable issue with Google Workspace regarding accounts getting mixed up, or 2FA set up wrong, or integrating a new domain and running in to snags, or the labyrinth of help docs sending you in a loop, or phantom Workspace payments for an account that no-one remembers setting up, or…
I did not expect that the answer to all my problems would be - Ryyn, from @oetyng that’s what I get for not having the time to frequent the forum these days, I’m missing all the fun. This looks totally amazing! I wholeheartedly concur that if you can get the simple things working straightforwardly and reliably, it’ll be a major piece of infrastructure. Incredible
Yes, those sorts of issues always amaze me when they happen.
So, regarding solving problems. Sharing files is exactly what Ryyn does, and versions are a fundamental part of the design, it comes with the design really.
But when it comes to real time collaboration of a document, the technical solution is different. It can definitely be on the todo list, but I have not even begun to consider it yet. It’s not inherently more complicated than anything else here (I’ve already planned for immediate p2p sync as a side channel to the durable storage), just a question of stated scope and developer bandwidth.
It’s great to hear about what problems people see this solving, it’s valuable to have in mind in all parts of the development even if the specific feature isn’t currently being developed.
I’m learning from your comment here that somewhere Google Workspace must advertise and even include options for real time collaboration If the business I’ve been helping out is anything to go by, the reality is much simpler.
What it’s used for - at least in this company, which is not a tech company by any means - is one person can open something on their computer, work on it, save it, and move on to something else. Then later another person can log in from their computer and work on the same document in the state the first person left it in, save it, and move on to something else.
So there has been a voice in my head going - how much are we paying Google Workspace (really Google Drive is all that’s being used, and Gmail too sort of, as far as I can tell) for this feature? And what exactly is the feature and what does it rely on - storing a file somewhere that two users can access? We’ve a gargantuan middle-man charging us a hefty fee (which they keep jacking up recently, btw) in order to - store files on a server for us?
So, maybe you see my point more clearly there. I think they literally just need to be able to store files somewhere with an absolute minimum amount of “tech-speak” - I maybe should have already been saying to myself: perhaps if we had some kind of massive array of internet disks that any citizen could easily access
It will be interesting when I come to that. Don’t hold back if you have ideas.
that’s what I get for not having the time to frequent the forum these days, I’m missing all the fun. This looks totally amazing! I wholeheartedly concur that if you can get the simple things working straightforwardly and reliably, it’ll be a major piece of infrastructure. Incredible
If the business I’ve been helping out is anything to go by, the reality is much simpler.