I love the product, but it bothers me that it's not open source. (Not their problem or anyone else's, but I prefer not to use close-source software if I can help it.)
Also, after I don't know how long, the whole "the API is around the corner" thing began to feel like a shell game.
I love the product, but it bothers me that it's not open source. (Not their problem or anyone else's, but I prefer not to use close-source software if I can help it.)
They created one of the fastest and best methods of syncing there is, maybe the best one if simply being intuitive counts. They make their money by licensing it to you. How would you take that and open-source it without killing dhouston's method of making a living?
Also: What's this about not liking closed-source? That's like saying you dislike songs that you can't download as individual tracks. Maybe it's cool that some things are broken down and easy to tinker with, but it's silly to turn that into disliking the ones you can't break.
If my imprecision bothers you, feel free to s/con game/shell game/.
>Also: What's this about not liking closed-source? That's like saying you dislike songs that you can't download as individual tracks. Maybe it's cool that some things are broken down and easy to tinker with, but it's silly to turn that into disliking the ones you can't break.
I don't think you know what the value of free and open software is. It has nothing to do with wanting things "you can break." I have no idea how you make that leap (open source == breakable?). I would add that a closed source application built (as far as I've read) on open source pieces (SVN? Python? Rsync?) is especially off-putting to me.
To clarify one other point. Ubuntu has already reverse-engineered Dropbox (as Ubuntu One), so if Dropbox's profit relies on their having the sole access to the magic formula, it's already too late. Anything can be (and generally will be) reverse engineered. I don't think that closing off the source is a royal road to success.
Your imprecision, as you call it, is that you are associating Dropbox saying they're working on an API with a shady person trying to steal your money. Unless you've paid them for an API that you didn't receive, they haven't conned you.
I don't think you know what the value of free and open software is.
I'll hazard a guess: It's free, and also anybody's able to improve it if they want. I've only got five years' experience with open source, though, so perhaps I'm still an amateur at this.
To clarify one other point. Ubuntu has already reverse-engineered Dropbox (as Ubuntu One), so if Dropbox's profit relies on their having the sole access to the magic formula, it's already too late. Anything can be (and generally will be) reverse engineered. I don't think that closing off the source is a royal road to success.
So they use Dropbox's exact code? Or are you saying that they saw what Dropbox did and decided to copy it? Because that's not reverse engineering.
Funny story: Once upon a time I thought that open source would lead to everything getting better. I thought Firefox, for instance, would just continue to be an unstoppable beast because, after all, anybody who wanted to could make it do anything any other browser did. Then I realized Firefox was slow and ugly on the Mac, moved to the closed-source Safari, and enjoy its incredibly sleek design. It was around the time I stopped using Ubuntu because I realized the closed-source OS X was better. Now that Windows 7 is spreading, I think Ubuntu's dropped to my third-favorite OS.
The problem with your line of thinking is that open source doesn't pay. The best people in certain fields, meanwhile, only work for money, and occasionally only for large gobs of money. That includes interface designers, and a lot of the people who work on fixing the ugly problems that nobody really likes working on. So open source's downfall is that it can't compete with the quality and focus of closed-source. It's the problem with democracy, so to speak.
I like open source for some things. I still haven't found an open-source application that's as cutting-edge as its closed equivalents. Even Quicksilver left me dissatisfied until I discovered the Google-sponsored Quick Search Box.
I've found the best OS projects are system libraries and utilities and tools where the developer is also the end user. The more UI is piled up, the more non-developer involvement is needed the worse it gets. The worst are open source games; nothing good since Nethack.
One caveat: building motivated teams is hard, even if money does seem to be in the mix.
-
Motivated teams are a confounding factor in startups, I think. A common reason for starting a startup is 'independence' which I take to mean 'choosing who I work with'. But I have no confidence whatsoever that I can do a better job if I take on that infrastructural task. Perhaps it is under-estimated?
Deleted comment
I realize Dropbox might be able to open source their client without significant risk, but why take any unnecessary risks at this point? There's no reason to. Or maybe Dropbox feels that their source code's quality is nasty, and don't want to put in the effort to clean it up before open sourcing it.
It's solely the decision of Dropbox whether the Dropbox client is open sourced, and they should not be blamed for deciding against it.
Having an automated sync of folders with the cloud is hardly rocket science. Dropbox packaged it up nicely but I doubt Ubu' really reverse engineered it they more likely started with something like rsync or unison and made a nice clean and simple frontend modeled on the simplicity of Dropbox.
I've run into this with other startups too; getting bugs fixed, or even acknowledged, is like pulling teeth. It's way longer and way harder than it has to be.
Along with APIs, we've been promised selective sync, better permissions, and a whole host of other features with due dates in the 9+ months ago range.
Don't get me wrong, I love Dropbox. Couldn't live without it. I even sent them a resume once along with an expanded bug list I wanted to fix, but never heard back.