Synology cloud backups



  • @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...



  • @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Didn't Oracle just win a law suit proving that this is incorrect?



  • @coliver said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Didn't Oracle just win a law suit proving that this is incorrect?

    No, they used copyright not patents, because they lost the patent suit specifically as an API is not patentable.



  • @coliver said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Didn't Oracle just win a law suit proving that this is incorrect?

    Also, that is a very different scenario that's not actually about the APIs, but recreating the products.

    Oracle claimed that copying the APIs to make an identical, even identically names, product violated copyright. It does not, not in any way, the current court results are very clearly the result of total legal incompetence or corruption. But that's a different matter. Google recreated java, called it Java, and put it out as Java using the Java API that Oracle claimed that they had copywrited.

    S3 is not being copied here, nor is any product being provided. This is purely a service that "speaks the same language" using standard, open APIs as have always been available.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying. The 3 block logo was throwing me off as I thought it would be somehow using specific stuff for AWS since that has appeared to be their branding/logo; obviously it isn't an issue or Wasabi would have legal issues to deal with.



  • @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying. The 3 block logo was throwing me off as I thought it would be somehow using specific stuff for AWS since that has appeared to be their branding/logo; obviously it isn't an issue or Wasabi would have legal issues to deal with.

    Where are you seeing that? I'm poking around on Wasabi's site and don't see it used.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying. The 3 block logo was throwing me off as I thought it would be somehow using specific stuff for AWS since that has appeared to be their branding/logo; obviously it isn't an issue or Wasabi would have legal issues to deal with.

    Where are you seeing that? I'm poking around on Wasabi's site and don't see it used.

    Sorry, on the Synology Cloud Sync tool.



  • @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying. The 3 block logo was throwing me off as I thought it would be somehow using specific stuff for AWS since that has appeared to be their branding/logo; obviously it isn't an issue or Wasabi would have legal issues to deal with.

    Where are you seeing that? I'm poking around on Wasabi's site and don't see it used.

    Sorry, on the Synology Cloud Sync tool.

    Right, that's Synology using it, not Wasabi. The tool is for "connecting to S3". It's definitely Amazon S3's logo. Why would Synology using it in any way cause legal trouble for Wasabi who didn't use it?



  • @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying. The 3 block logo was throwing me off as I thought it would be somehow using specific stuff for AWS since that has appeared to be their branding/logo; obviously it isn't an issue or Wasabi would have legal issues to deal with.

    Where are you seeing that? I'm poking around on Wasabi's site and don't see it used.

    Sorry, on the Synology Cloud Sync tool.

    Right, that's Synology using it, not Wasabi. The tool is for "connecting to S3". It's definitely Amazon S3's logo. Why would Synology using it in any way cause legal trouble for Wasabi who didn't use it?

    It wouldn't. I misspoke in that regard now that I am thinking about it more.



  • This is a very common use of logos. Company A offers something that is common from Company B. Company A uses Company B's logo to denote the use of the service.

    Example: You want to connect to an SMB share and the interface calls it a "Windows share" and shows a Windows logo to denote that it is a Windows API based service.

    But if you as the end user set up a Linux-based SMB file server, and put your Linux credentials into the tool, it will connect to Linux the same as Windows.



  • @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying. The 3 block logo was throwing me off as I thought it would be somehow using specific stuff for AWS since that has appeared to be their branding/logo; obviously it isn't an issue or Wasabi would have legal issues to deal with.

    Where are you seeing that? I'm poking around on Wasabi's site and don't see it used.

    Sorry, on the Synology Cloud Sync tool.

    Right, that's Synology using it, not Wasabi. The tool is for "connecting to S3". It's definitely Amazon S3's logo. Why would Synology using it in any way cause legal trouble for Wasabi who didn't use it?

    It wouldn't. I misspoke in that regard now that I am thinking about it more.

    Plus I'm hungover so I'm not firing on all cylinders today.



  • @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying. The 3 block logo was throwing me off as I thought it would be somehow using specific stuff for AWS since that has appeared to be their branding/logo; obviously it isn't an issue or Wasabi would have legal issues to deal with.

    Where are you seeing that? I'm poking around on Wasabi's site and don't see it used.

    Sorry, on the Synology Cloud Sync tool.

    Right, that's Synology using it, not Wasabi. The tool is for "connecting to S3". It's definitely Amazon S3's logo. Why would Synology using it in any way cause legal trouble for Wasabi who didn't use it?

    It wouldn't. I misspoke in that regard now that I am thinking about it more.

    I dislike when they use logos like that. Because you can never tell if they mean it is integrated with the service, like the logo implies, or if it just uses a certain API that they are incorrectly associating.



  • I see it often with tools that do WebDAV. It's just a generic WebDAV interface, btu they label it after some random WebDAV provider, making it super confusing to figure out what it will work with.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    @scottalanmiller said in Synology cloud backups:

    @bbigford said in Synology cloud backups:

    Ended up just going with BackBlaze B2 for the cost.

    And there is Wasabi.

    I do like that company for many reasons other than cost. But what throws me off is the method to connect the appliance is to use AWS S3. Any idea why that is?

    That's not what it says at all. You are seeing the S3 API being chosen and thinking of Amazon's S3 service. Wasabi is just S3 compatible, that's all. It doesn't require a special API like other services.

    The logo is what is throwing me off. I'm assuming the S3 API was created by Amazon, but then they are just allowing other companies to use it?

    From what I've read about S3, it isn't proprietary; which makes me think Amazon doesn't have any kind of patent on the tech...

    S3 is a service. A patent isn't possible on a service. That's not how patents works. An API is an interface and can't be patented either. That would be like patenting a language.

    S3 the product is totally proprietary. S3 the API must be public or it is useless.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying. The 3 block logo was throwing me off as I thought it would be somehow using specific stuff for AWS since that has appeared to be their branding/logo; obviously it isn't an issue or Wasabi would have legal issues to deal with.

    Where are you seeing that? I'm poking around on Wasabi's site and don't see it used.

    Sorry, on the Synology Cloud Sync tool.

    Right, that's Synology using it, not Wasabi. The tool is for "connecting to S3". It's definitely Amazon S3's logo. Why would Synology using it in any way cause legal trouble for Wasabi who didn't use it?

    It wouldn't. I misspoke in that regard now that I am thinking about it more.

    I dislike when they use logos like that. Because you can never tell if they mean it is integrated with the service, like the logo implies, or if it just uses a certain API that they are incorrectly associating.

    I fully agree with that.