What about ecryptfs, running on top of an ext4 layer ?
I believe a fairly common use case is to encrypt the home folder, under Linux, so that if a laptop is lost/stolen, a hostile third party cannot easily access the contents of the home folder.
Thanks for letting us know! It's good that you're spinning this as a usability issue instead of what it really is -- a cost issue. I mean no one will be able to see through that at all.
And if you're looking to get rid of file systems, you should begin with NTFS. The only reason you're keeping it around is because that's the majority of your user base, and has little to do with stability and consistency.
I'll be happy to take my syncing needs to Google Drive or Syncthing or OwnCloud -- it's only bandwidth.
Well that's a stupid decision.
When I first came across Dropbox it had just released the Linux version. Everyone knew that Dropbox was a company interested in Linux users (remember having to write limericks to get access to the app?!!).
Now you're dropping support for Linux filesystems which are POPULAR, filesystems that are the future?
I'm a paying customer. If you drop support for BTRFS or XFS (which I'm using) then I may be dropping you.
Come on, go back to the good old days when you were Linux-friendly and reverse this decision.
XFS absolutely has to be supported. It's the default in RHEL7 and all derivatives.
Not supporting RHEL7 means you don't care about enterprise Linux.
"> … it's possible that you may have recently had a computer linked that was running an unsupported file system but have been since upgraded, or that computer is no longer being used.
I have only two devices connected: An Ubuntu 16.04 64-bit system using ext4, and an Android 8 (Pixel 2, unrooted). I've had this setup for years, although both the Ubuntu and Android versions have changed with time. (Yes, I have ensured that I've deleted the old ones off my Dropbox account.)
The message, therefore, makes no sense according to what you have described.
If the message happens because the file system has been encrypted, well, forcing the files onto an unencrypted folder also makes no sense. In the EU (including the UK), that will place a business in big trouble. We have a legal requirement to encrypt sensitive information. Therefore, if you force me to use an unencrypted folder, for legal reasons I shall have no choice but to leave Dropbox. That would make me sad, as I'd rather stay.
> BTRFS is the standard default file system for ubuntu system partitions…
Sorry, incorrect. Ubuntu uses ext4 by default. However, BTRFS, as you say, does support extended attributes. To us, the "extended attributes" argument looks like a smokescreen.
I wonder what Dropbox what to accomplish here, especially having this false reason with xattrs, but I don't think that this will work. The only reason would be migration of users to other platforms, as we have plenty of solutions now.
Or use own file sync, like cloud station from one of NAS vendors - much cheaper and safer in the long run.
Anyways, hope that Dropbox will make good decision and withdraw those plans.
I'll get the same message nowadays. I can't see the reasoning about this decision. Please Dropbox, shed some light onto this.
This is a completely unacceptable move from Dropbox.
I've been using Dropbox on BTRFS daily since 2014, on more than 12 machines over time, all distros.
It has always worked smoothly and I never saw a single sync problem because of the underlying FS.
Dropbox shoul be completely filesystem agnostic, as long as the FS is POSIX and provides the necessary attributes, which all modern FSes do. Why should Dropbox ever need to mess with the FS ?
Dropping BTRFS, which is the « standard modern FS of the future » on Linux, as well as XFSwhich is a big professional standard, and ecryptfs, which is Ubuntu and Mint's default home dir encryption method ?
WTF, Dropbox could alltogether end Linux support.
I love BTRFS features and reliability, if I have to choose between BTRFS and Dropbox, I will certainly not drop BTRFS. Take it for granted.