> You can grant permission to multiple folders you know.
I had to deal with another application (the only one that I found that for using my webdav solution does not automatically want to collect data and send it somewhere else) which instead of make backup of SD card was backup one folder - set server, password etc. for ONE folder PER backup action.
- If you want to lose time for 2 hours, please do yourself this questionable favour but I do not want to do that because some "wise" people cannot comprehend that some people want copy of entire thing, not one folder, entire thing.
> Downloads is blocked because it would include everything you download, possibly including private stuff you don't want other apps to access.
The point: This is cloud application that connects to server that sits on my desk on NUC.
Do you understand that in the (Google)-(Open Source)-(Own Server) the Google part is one that most reasonable people consider not private.
> Just save the stuff that you want synced to a different folder.
Do you move entire folders or every file each time you download something because app cannot backup it - or do you change app.
What if that's the only app that does it privately?
> Those are kinda separate use cases though.
Maybe it is not system developer job to decide for me that I want to give application the permission to do what I want application to do. It is not system nor developer job to stop owner (administrator) from what owner decides to do.
> Maybe Nextcloud could make a separate "Nextcloud Device Backup" app which does that?
Maybe competitors should not have permission on deciding what their competitors should do.
Google essentially makes everything private so cumbersome to use that it own solution seems easy.
"Their boss" - I'm not sure that boss is best word here.
"did ask for it" - did he? Because from my perspective it looks more like he gave the bone for corporations so they will shut up for rust in kernel. After some time it will end up "Sorry but rust did not have enough support - maintainers left and there were issues with language - well back to C"
"If OBS isn't good enough for Fedora" - fanboyism is never good. If OBS has issues in development then what? What would you do if it stops updating Qt permanently? Think not let emotions act.
"works great" - doesn't mean it is secure.
You can write application that works great and is swiss cheese from security standpoint.
You can write secure application that works like nightmare.
"inappropriate" - why?
If it is statement of fact then it can not be inappropriate.
Also mind you OBS blocked the issue about fact that they use EOL qt on github - this does not look to me as good project.
"the Fedora-packaged-flatpak breaks" - is it broken? Because no one even speaks about real state of package! Or by "broken" you mean - does not have functionality I want! Or it uses Qt version which breaks the application!
Because In first case that not breakage - that's loss of functionality and if motivated by legal reasons - I can understand (not approve since US software patents are from my perspective idiocy), if motivated by security I wholeheartedly approve - because you are shooting messenger(fedora) of bad news(OBS bad practices) here.
In second - Qt is broken so send regards to them and their policy:
Update it so often to make GPL/LGPL version as miserable as possible.
Which they then use to sell companies the LTS versions under proprietary license.
I agree with breaking (it is good feedback about software state) to modernize dependencies - but then again I'm using Arch so…
I find it quite funny that OBS thinks that fedora isn't giving reasonable response when they (OBS) blocked any responses to issue of them still using EOL Qt 6.6 - since December.
> How is it worse when Google wants to implement something that Apple already did?
P.S.
It isn't worse - both are terrible and both should ultimately be scrapped.
Just because one company invents invasive bs doesn't give rest right to continue with that.
Before someone says Apple has 50% of phones - no it does not. Based on worldwide data not US one.
- If you want to lose time for 2 hours, please do yourself this questionable favour but I do not want to do that because some "wise" people cannot comprehend that some people want copy of entire thing, not one folder, entire thing.
> Downloads is blocked because it would include everything you download, possibly including private stuff you don't want other apps to access. The point: This is cloud application that connects to server that sits on my desk on NUC.
Do you understand that in the (Google)-(Open Source)-(Own Server) the Google part is one that most reasonable people consider not private.
> Just save the stuff that you want synced to a different folder.
Do you move entire folders or every file each time you download something because app cannot backup it - or do you change app. What if that's the only app that does it privately?
> Those are kinda separate use cases though.
Maybe it is not system developer job to decide for me that I want to give application the permission to do what I want application to do. It is not system nor developer job to stop owner (administrator) from what owner decides to do.
> Maybe Nextcloud could make a separate "Nextcloud Device Backup" app which does that?
Maybe competitors should not have permission on deciding what their competitors should do.
Google essentially makes everything private so cumbersome to use that it own solution seems easy.
reply