Hacker News Reader

In that case it might have been helpful if you stated that you were shifting the context away from FTP; as was the context in the GPs comment. ;)

NFS and AFS (from what limited I know of it) are more designed for local networks thus to leverage NFS over a WAN you'd then need to tunnel your connection (eg via SSH or VPN). So while there is obviously overlap between them and Dropbox I wouldn't really say the two are all that comparable.

However to answer your point, I don't think anyone would disagree with the specific part of your point regarding how simplicity is often better than something arguably more powerful. However just because something is simple it doesn't mean it isn't also good. "Good" is just a question of whether it meets requirements. If your requirement is that it can be installed and operated by layman then Dropbox is a far better solution than any other the other proposals you've mentioned.

>you'd then need to tunnel your connection (eg via SSH or VPN)

Well, there is an sshfs FUSE filesystem, for what it's worth

Yup, mentioned that in my previous post. Awesome project. I remember the first time I discovered it - I felt like a caveman who'd just discovered fire.

Which works on Windows via Dokan [1]

[1] https://github.com/dokan-dev/dokan-sshfs

AFS works fine over a WAN. Sometimes a little slow on metadata operations.

Network file systems are harder than they sound, and writing additional file systems for Windows is a huge pain. Even Microsoft's own solution - OneDrive - they've had to walk back slightly on their "placeholder" implementation for detached operation, which was great when it worked but occasionally managed to blow up badly.

> Which is why we’re all using an internet powered by Javascript, Electron apps on the desktop, etc. Worse is better.

That's being a bit alarmist, isn't it? It's not worse is better. It's the right amount of compromises is better. Or, "good enough is better".

Perfection usually has diminishing returns and is rarely obtainable. Worse is not better. Good enough is better; objectively so.

As my brother likes to say, "good enough is, otherwise they wouldn't call it that."

I think you mixed up worse is better. The idea behind the phrase is that quality does not increase with functionality. Functionality often means features along with bells and whistles. Sure that application looks pretty and offers tons of features but with that complexity and glut comes a steeper learning curve as well as possible security and stability issues in the code (more bugs).

A good comparison would be comparing using make files and a simple text editor like vim to visual studio. Is visual studio truly better because it offers more features when a make file and vim can do much the same? A programmer used to VS might call the make file method worse, but the reality is that it is the simpler path which makes it better. Realize that simple doesn't mean "simple to use" but simple in terms of complexity (philosophical simplicity is at play here).

Worse is better is better translated as "A simple design is better, but not from the users perspective."

I'm talking about these two points from the paper, regarding the "Worse is Better" philosophy:

> Simplicity -- the design must be simple, both in implementation and interface. It is more important for the implementation to be simple than the interface. Simplicity is the most important consideration in a design.

> Correctness -- the design must be correct in all observable aspects. It is slightly better to be simple than correct.

Dropbox is simple in implementation, at the cost of simplicity in the interface and correctness. E.g. it is simpler to simply punt on locked files in Windows. Tell the user to quit Word if they want their file to sync, instead of handling file locking at the protocol level. Likewise, it's simpler to detect changed files after the fact than write a filesystem driver to knows what blocks are changed. But it degrades the user experience (their computer burns clock cycles re-figuring-out information a real filesystem driver would've had).

The upside of all that is that Dropbox was simple to implement, simple to port, and simple to deploy, which made it popular:

> Therefore, the worse-is-better software first will gain acceptance, second will condition its users to expect less, and third will be improved to a point that is almost the right thing.

NFS is probably the most unreliable network file system that is still in use.

Even SMB is better

Dropbox may come through for you in the end. They've got a feature called "Smart Sync" that is a network file system implemented as a kernel driver. See https://www.dropbox.com/smartsync and https://www.dropbox.com/help/desktop-web/filesystem-integrat.... Not sure if it's doing block level diff or not though.