What alternative have Linux users to Dropbox, to using their own server? (That is, for a number of reasons for most people, suboptimal)?
You cant really use OneDrive365, and Dropbox offers vast support to Linux, is easy to set and can be used for free too.
Is there a reason why Linux users wouldn't use it? Asking for curiosity.
ext4 on encrypted devices, such as dm-crypt/LUKS, is supported. What is not supported are encryption filesystems that are 'filesystem overlays', such as ecryptfs.
(Since I was using ZFS, I am still debating whether to stay with Dropbox after November's filesystem apocalypse.)
FYI, you can still use ecrypt fs with dropbox. Put the encrypted store within your dropbox, and mount it outside your dropbox. From the dropbox point of view, you have thousands of files with gibberish as names.
Better go with Nextcloud than ownCloud. Nextcloud is the fork by the original developer team, and has quite a few nice improvements compared to ownCloud (e.g.: video and text chat, e2e encryption)
I use SpiderOak One [1] which is a privacy focused alternative to Dropbox. I run it on Ubuntu (and previously on Debian and Arch Linux). There's no free tier like there is with Dropbox though.
For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
kbfs is a network filesystem, whereas Dropbox provides file synchronization. kbfs does not work when you are offline, whereas with Dropbox the files are always available locally on your machine.
