Many things the article paints as bad are pretty much "I like vanilla ice cream" level arguments, not actual faults.
eg. log in vs. generate and exchange codes.
"Sharing is so easy, just exchange public keys". Yes, and sharing with a serverside cloud storage solution is as easy as giving someone the link or typing their email into a share dialog, and I don't have to do jack anymore. It's completely onesided to share files is wanted and need be.
Not liking a default share folder is, again, personal preference. Having a dedicated cloud storage folder is nice and clear to most people.
Being able to pick and choose is a legit advantage, though.
> How do you connect two devices, if there’s no registration, accounts, email, etc? Simple! > Each device has a unique id, generated automatically when you first run the program. > Share this id with another device, let them share their, and you are good to go.
Totally easier than typing your account info, right?
Also means you have to install an app while with traditional storage services you can just log into a webpage and grab what you need.
> More “features”: > > Desktop sync, > Photos sync, > Screenshots sync. > > These are at least file-like? I don’t understand why they have to be “special features”, though, > if you already have an app whose primary task is to sync files. It already does that. Why are some files more special than others? > > The answer is simple: the only way Dropbox can survive is by building and selling more features. You’ll never have peace of mind with them.
Highly tech-savvy FOSS advocate is oblivious to the existence of non-UNIX operating systems.
Most of these are summarizable as "Dropbox sucks" more than "cloud storage services suck."