ubuntuone-users team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: ubuntuone - cross-platform support
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 18:01 +0530, shirish wrote:
> Hi all,
> This is going to be perhaps a controversial (or not) request. So
> please take couple of deep breaths, have your favorite cup of coffee,
> put the AC or whatever puts you at ease. My use-case is desktop users
> rather than anybody else.
> Existing scenario :-
> 1. As of right now, the only competitor per-se is usage of google
> gears rather than anything else. http://tools.google.com/gears/ and of
> localstorage http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/localstorage/ which are
> of browser-based solutions. (but then the data remains on PC as well
> as the cloud and I/O as in bandwidth is saved.)
> 2. The other kind of solution which exists are something like
> http://docs.google.com/ and www.zoho.com which are again manual upload
> file-sharing and backup online solutions.
> 3. The other competitor is of course windows skydrive or whatever its
> called (which I haven't really checked out).
> 4. The use-case is specifically with desktop users its much more
> easier to get them acquainted with the windows version of FOSS
> applications, get their usage of these applications happening and then
> slowly migrate them towards GNU/Linux. If they are already aware and
> using FOSS applications then the migration is relatively pain-free.
> (or atleast that has been my humble experience so far.)
> 5. It would be great if ubuntuone would be open for FOSS applications
> file backup, syncing etc. on the windows platform too . It should give
> bigger visibility to Ubuntu in MS-Windows world which doesn't know any
> other service provider other than MS and Google.
> I do have some more ideas but please lemme know what you think ?
> Feedback and constructive criticism encouraged.
You can access ubuntuone via the browser. I personally would object to
porting ubuntuone's client to windows because its something special for
ubuntu and using it on windows would reduce its specialness IMO. Plus I
dont think canonical would like their bandwidth taken up by windows