Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinsaccount | Hacker News Reader

huh? Why didn't you just use rsync?

I presume you know that rsync is a better solution to the problem. Not all of us do. Would you mind explaining why rsync is a better solution?

For starters, it's a proper replacement for "a bash script that will chunk and scp the files to a central server, and if it fails a chunk, it leaves it in the directory for her to manually re-run". It's installed on almost all Linux and Mac systems, so if your customer is using a script already, they might as well use rsync.

> Would you mind explaining why rsync is a better solution?

rsync basically chunks the files and sends the missing (or differing) chunks over scp, leaves the files in the destination directory if something fails, it is more or less an automated tool that already does what the GP is talking about.

> it is more or less an automated tool that already does what the GP is talking about.

But requires someone to be comfortable using a CLI.

But that 'someone' is someone who is already running a Bash script and re-running it each time an error occurs. So I don't see the problem here about using a CLI.

For technically capable people there are certainly lot's of good options for sending lots of data fast. We are just trying to make a service that makes this more accessible and requires no setup. As a side note we are currently working on an API and we intend to integrate with rsync so it can be used to upload content to our network.

I read it as "I'm running a bash script for someone else so they can pick it up from a server", not "my employee who has this issue created a bash script"...maybe I misinterpreted.

Because we have to deal with people as they are, and not as how we want them to be.

This is for sending large assets from party A to party B, where either the parties do not have access to a shared rsync-capable server, or they do not know how to use rsync. On a deadline, you can't afford to become a CLI trainer or require special software.

A common use case would involve service bureaus and creators. Trust me when I say that there are a hell of a lot of creators out there who would never be able to manage rsync. You want to make stuff like this drop-dead simple for people. That means a service that works in-browser.

Couldn't have summarized it better myself. I like to think we are just making cloud services more accessible for non-technical people and adding a tax to that. There is always ways to get something cheaper by rigging up a setup yourself but for creators that is time that could be spent on creating instead of infrastructure or tooling.

I was asking the person who said

> bash script that will chunk and scp the files to a central server, and if it fails a chunk, it leaves it in the directory for her to manually re-run

not responding to the linked post itself.

Mainly because I knew how to use split a file and use scp already. I didn't feel like researching the options and syntax of a new CLI tool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com