Storage question
-
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
WebDAV was specifically designed for the second scenario. The built in Windows 10 WebDav client is actually pretty decent, as in it works unlike the Windows 7 version.
Hrm, might have to give it a second look. I remember trying it while using Windows 7, and, no, just, no.
The Windows 7 client was pretty bad. It would lock up and refuse to connect when it was given a command it didn't like. In Windows 10, as long as you have a trusted certificate, it just seems to work without issues. A lot of that can be thanks to Sharepoint. WebDav is how Office and File Explorer access the Sharepoint files.
-
@stacksofplates said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
Sharepoint has been integrated since at least Office 2013, if not Office 2010, so I don't consider that recent at all.
Sure all the other sync clients Box, DropBox, OD, ODfB (i.e. sharepoint), oC, NextCloud, etc are all similar sync clients, and they all suffer the same problems.
These solutions are not what Scott's talking about in this post
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
Now Scott mentions that introducing a Windows Fileserver will change the way people work - but no, not really. With the sync client those users work exactly the same as a Windows Fileserver - the files are considered local, or at least semi-local because the sync client syncs the files to a place on the system.
In fact introducing NextCloud WebDav or pure cloud would be the completely new introduction here. And if they use the sync client, there would be zero change from a user POV.
So assuming Scott is only talking about the new modern ways for filesharing, we have to limit ourselves to WebDav or browser interface.
JB - my comments were and continue to be about this, not about the sync client. That's definitely not modern and definitely has known issues.
Box and Dropbox also have Office integration.
IIRC, and I may not be, Microsoft developed that integration in house using Box and Dropbox's APIs. I don't think Box or Dropbox had anything to do with it.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
Sharepoint has been integrated since at least Office 2013, if not Office 2010, so I don't consider that recent at all.
And how many in the SMB had SharePoint to sync to in 2010? This feature may have existed, but until O365, it was not relevant.
-
About NextCloud: Does versioning work for you guys over WebDav? I did some testing with this before and it seems like it did not work for me.
That was on OS X and Server 2012.
-
@coliver said in Storage question:
@stacksofplates said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
Sharepoint has been integrated since at least Office 2013, if not Office 2010, so I don't consider that recent at all.
Sure all the other sync clients Box, DropBox, OD, ODfB (i.e. sharepoint), oC, NextCloud, etc are all similar sync clients, and they all suffer the same problems.
These solutions are not what Scott's talking about in this post
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
Now Scott mentions that introducing a Windows Fileserver will change the way people work - but no, not really. With the sync client those users work exactly the same as a Windows Fileserver - the files are considered local, or at least semi-local because the sync client syncs the files to a place on the system.
In fact introducing NextCloud WebDav or pure cloud would be the completely new introduction here. And if they use the sync client, there would be zero change from a user POV.
So assuming Scott is only talking about the new modern ways for filesharing, we have to limit ourselves to WebDav or browser interface.
JB - my comments were and continue to be about this, not about the sync client. That's definitely not modern and definitely has known issues.
Box and Dropbox also have Office integration.
IIRC, and I may not be, Microsoft developed that integration in house using Box and Dropbox's APIs. I don't think Box or Dropbox had anything to do with it.
Ah, I'm not sure either. I know there is an app you have to add on Box to get it to work. I just assumed that meant they wrote it. I havent' used the Dropbox one, just knew it existed.
-
@dafyre said in Storage question:
About NextCloud: Does versioning work for you guys over WebDav? I did some testing with this before and it seems like it did not work for me.
That was on OS X and Server 2012.
Last time I tested it, in ownCloud, it seemed to work.
-
@stacksofplates said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
Sharepoint has been integrated since at least Office 2013, if not Office 2010, so I don't consider that recent at all.
Sure all the other sync clients Box, DropBox, OD, ODfB (i.e. sharepoint), oC, NextCloud, etc are all similar sync clients, and they all suffer the same problems.
These solutions are not what Scott's talking about in this post
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
Now Scott mentions that introducing a Windows Fileserver will change the way people work - but no, not really. With the sync client those users work exactly the same as a Windows Fileserver - the files are considered local, or at least semi-local because the sync client syncs the files to a place on the system.
In fact introducing NextCloud WebDav or pure cloud would be the completely new introduction here. And if they use the sync client, there would be zero change from a user POV.
So assuming Scott is only talking about the new modern ways for filesharing, we have to limit ourselves to WebDav or browser interface.
JB - my comments were and continue to be about this, not about the sync client. That's definitely not modern and definitely has known issues.
Box and Dropbox also have Office integration.
I wonder - does it work through their sync client only though? or is it direct to the server, like it can be with Sharepoint?
-
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
WebDAV was specifically designed for the second scenario. The built in Windows 10 WebDav client is actually pretty decent, as in it works unlike the Windows 7 version.
If you're talking about using WebDAV to map a network drive, then the solution has already failed - that's no different than a typical network share. Of course, as you mentioned eariler (the only reason I keep bringing it up) it does allow for versioning, which offers some crypto protection, but still not as much as you get by directly integrating WebDAV into the apps themselves (which I'll admit is probably only a short lived advantage to end users in regards to protection).
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
WebDAV was specifically designed for the second scenario. The built in Windows 10 WebDav client is actually pretty decent, as in it works unlike the Windows 7 version.
If you're talking about using WebDAV to map a network drive, then the solution has already failed - that's no different than a typical network share. Of course, as you mentioned eariler (the only reason I keep bringing it up) it does allow for versioning, which offers some crypto protection, but still not as much as you get by directly integrating WebDAV into the apps themselves (which I'll admit is probably only a short lived advantage to end users in regards to protection).
That's fair. That's also kind of a moot point though, using a traditional file server also has this disadvantage among others.
-
@coliver said in Storage question:
@dafyre said in Storage question:
About NextCloud: Does versioning work for you guys over WebDav? I did some testing with this before and it seems like it did not work for me.
That was on OS X and Server 2012.
Last time I tested it, in ownCloud, it seemed to work.
Works this way.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@dafyre said in Storage question:
About NextCloud: Does versioning work for you guys over WebDav? I did some testing with this before and it seems like it did not work for me.
That was on OS X and Server 2012.
Last time I tested it, in ownCloud, it seemed to work.
Works this way.
Good to see it is still working!
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
Sharepoint has been integrated since at least Office 2013, if not Office 2010, so I don't consider that recent at all.
And how many in the SMB had SharePoint to sync to in 2010? This feature may have existed, but until O365, it was not relevant.
From a solution perspective it's totally relevant. It's a way of doing work.
As Scott pointed out to me a while ago, mobile devices have been working this way for ages. You don't ever (hardly ever) access the filesystem to work on files, you access apps, and those apps have access to the limited filesystem places it needs to give you access to files used in that app.
I'll agree that it's a newish way of thinking, but does offer a lot of protections to the user. Then on a completely unrelated issue - toss in the use of Tags and get the hell rid of folder structure, and live becomes even better, but there is a cost.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@stacksofplates said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
Sharepoint has been integrated since at least Office 2013, if not Office 2010, so I don't consider that recent at all.
Sure all the other sync clients Box, DropBox, OD, ODfB (i.e. sharepoint), oC, NextCloud, etc are all similar sync clients, and they all suffer the same problems.
These solutions are not what Scott's talking about in this post
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
Now Scott mentions that introducing a Windows Fileserver will change the way people work - but no, not really. With the sync client those users work exactly the same as a Windows Fileserver - the files are considered local, or at least semi-local because the sync client syncs the files to a place on the system.
In fact introducing NextCloud WebDav or pure cloud would be the completely new introduction here. And if they use the sync client, there would be zero change from a user POV.
So assuming Scott is only talking about the new modern ways for filesharing, we have to limit ourselves to WebDav or browser interface.
JB - my comments were and continue to be about this, not about the sync client. That's definitely not modern and definitely has known issues.
Box and Dropbox also have Office integration.
I wonder - does it work through their sync client only though? or is it direct to the server, like it can be with Sharepoint?
The Box one now says works with any program. However, I can't try it since I don't have any Windows machines.
-
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
WebDAV was specifically designed for the second scenario. The built in Windows 10 WebDav client is actually pretty decent, as in it works unlike the Windows 7 version.
If you're talking about using WebDAV to map a network drive, then the solution has already failed - that's no different than a typical network share. Of course, as you mentioned eariler (the only reason I keep bringing it up) it does allow for versioning, which offers some crypto protection, but still not as much as you get by directly integrating WebDAV into the apps themselves (which I'll admit is probably only a short lived advantage to end users in regards to protection).
That's fair. That's also kind of a moot point though, using a traditional file server also has this disadvantage among others.
Right, the entire crypto thing is a damned red herring.
Backups handle that, not the accessibility solution.
-
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
WebDAV was specifically designed for the second scenario. The built in Windows 10 WebDav client is actually pretty decent, as in it works unlike the Windows 7 version.
If you're talking about using WebDAV to map a network drive, then the solution has already failed - that's no different than a typical network share. Of course, as you mentioned eariler (the only reason I keep bringing it up) it does allow for versioning, which offers some crypto protection, but still not as much as you get by directly integrating WebDAV into the apps themselves (which I'll admit is probably only a short lived advantage to end users in regards to protection).
That's fair. That's also kind of a moot point though, using a traditional file server also has this disadvantage among others.
Exactly, but that wraps around to my first post of today. Which was just that Scott was talking about new/modern ways of access files - but in reality the users of the OP were using the old way this whole time because they are using sync clients. Those users had the option of using the new way, but clearly weren't because the problem as stated by the OP was in the sync client.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
WebDAV was specifically designed for the second scenario. The built in Windows 10 WebDav client is actually pretty decent, as in it works unlike the Windows 7 version.
If you're talking about using WebDAV to map a network drive, then the solution has already failed - that's no different than a typical network share. Of course, as you mentioned eariler (the only reason I keep bringing it up) it does allow for versioning, which offers some crypto protection, but still not as much as you get by directly integrating WebDAV into the apps themselves (which I'll admit is probably only a short lived advantage to end users in regards to protection).
That's fair. That's also kind of a moot point though, using a traditional file server also has this disadvantage among others.
Right, the entire crypto thing is a damned red herring.
Backups handle that, not the accessibility solution.
Backups is one solution to the crypto thing - but a pretty poor one. Sadly ultimately it might be the only one.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
WebDAV was specifically designed for the second scenario. The built in Windows 10 WebDav client is actually pretty decent, as in it works unlike the Windows 7 version.
If you're talking about using WebDAV to map a network drive, then the solution has already failed - that's no different than a typical network share. Of course, as you mentioned eariler (the only reason I keep bringing it up) it does allow for versioning, which offers some crypto protection, but still not as much as you get by directly integrating WebDAV into the apps themselves (which I'll admit is probably only a short lived advantage to end users in regards to protection).
That's fair. That's also kind of a moot point though, using a traditional file server also has this disadvantage among others.
Right, the entire crypto thing is a damned red herring.
Backups handle that, not the accessibility solution.
Backups is one solution to the crypto thing - but a pretty poor one. Sadly ultimately it might be the only one.
How is that a poor one? Crypot is going to hit everything you can access. When you connect to webdav, are you going to make your users log in every time? If not, then Windows will have knowledge and it can be accessed.
Backups are the only way to provide security from crypto, not the poorest solution.
-
Word and Excell do not like weddav. They prompt for credentials each time and refuse to open.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
Word and Excell do not like weddav. They prompt for credentials each time and refuse to open.
Is that from the mounted share or trying to directly access documents? Either way that is interesting, Sharepoint uses WebDAV as the protocol to access ODfB and OneDrive.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
WebDAV was specifically designed for the second scenario. The built in Windows 10 WebDav client is actually pretty decent, as in it works unlike the Windows 7 version.
If you're talking about using WebDAV to map a network drive, then the solution has already failed - that's no different than a typical network share. Of course, as you mentioned eariler (the only reason I keep bringing it up) it does allow for versioning, which offers some crypto protection, but still not as much as you get by directly integrating WebDAV into the apps themselves (which I'll admit is probably only a short lived advantage to end users in regards to protection).
That's fair. That's also kind of a moot point though, using a traditional file server also has this disadvantage among others.
Right, the entire crypto thing is a damned red herring.
Backups handle that, not the accessibility solution.
Backups is one solution to the crypto thing - but a pretty poor one. Sadly ultimately it might be the only one.
How is that a poor one? Crypot is going to hit everything you can access. When you connect to webdav, are you going to make your users log in every time? If not, then Windows will have knowledge and it can be accessed.
Backups are the only way to provide security from crypto, not the poorest solution.
It's poor because unless you have a real time backup solution in place, it's not that, it's not real time... so you'll lose changes made since the last backup.
The versioning does help that go a long way!
And just because it's poor, doesn't mean it's not effective, it simply means it's not a great solution. A great solution would be one where you would lose nothing - i.e. real time backups, but the cost of that often outweighs its value.
