> 1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
Trivially use three different systems to simulate some type of not quite automatic syncing.
Why do Linux users often claim something is "trivial" and then go on to list obscure commands and software packages that have to be tied together in just the right way? To me that's "possible to do", not "trivial to do".
I suppose you have to come at it from the mindset of those actually using Linux. That is, if it already exists and can be glued together using open tools (as opposed to having to code it yourself), it is "trivial", since it has already been done before.
Intentionally or not, your comment seems to stereotype "those actually
using Linux" as unable to appreciate the value of the time and effort saved by a prepackaged solution. While that certainly happens (and is more common in the Linux community than in many others) it is not universal. The popularity of Linux distributions like RHEL and Ubuntu among developers and IT people speaks to that.
> and then go on to list obscure commands and software packages that have to be tied together in just the right way?
Which one of these is actually obscure? curlftpfs is just a remote mount tool, SVN/CVS/FTP - I don't think I have to say anything about them given we are on hacker news. And seriously, setting up a repository on a remotely mounted folder is a challenge?
If I would want to answer your post with as much polemic as you put into yours I'd ask why Windows users always need a specialized malware and adware infused tool just to solve simple tasks such as batch renaming a few hundred images.
Also, you have to remember the context of that comment. Dropbox was just some obscure third party client back then that you couldn't even get from your package manager.
Don't get me wrong, I do see the use case of Dropbox, especially for those without a technical background. But I don't understand the perceived reverence Dropbox gets in this thread.
Well, I have noticed that Linux users tend to approach problems selfishly, i.e. "How can I solve this problem for myself?" and the solution is trivial in such case.
However, the question is actually "How can this problem be solved for all people, including my mom?", and when posed as such, the solution needs to be much simpler.
If you're already familiar with those tools, the incremental effort to put them together is trivial.
It's no different from saying that driving to the store is trivial: People who don't already know how to drive would disagree, but it doesn't make the statement invalid.
This is probably the disconnect. My experience with Linux is generally limited to servers (headless). I only have one Linux box at home and that's for XBMC. So for someone like me that has a workable knowledge of Linux but not every package that's around, these types of solutions are non-obvious and non-trivial. A matter of perspective I guess.
> 1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
Trivially use three different systems to simulate some type of not quite automatic syncing.
Why do Linux users often claim something is "trivial" and then go on to list obscure commands and software packages that have to be tied together in just the right way? To me that's "possible to do", not "trivial to do".