I would appreciated the community's feedback on this issue
Thanks
Nick
In addition it looks like Proton guys are not interested really in supporting any third parties access:
There is plenty of Proton Drive related issues on this forum we can’t do anything about. @henrybear327 did fantastic job with reverse engineering their API but without anybody else able to carry on ongoing maintenance this remote experience apparent software rot. IMO it should be marked as unsupported at the moment. It will save a lot of frustrations and time wasted by users. Unfortunately its current designation as beta creates false impression that it is pretty much working - which is no longer the case.
2 Likes
i agree with that.
Yes, please do. I made this very request just now in a “read the forums” lazy post. If this url: Proton Drive stated at the top that this is no longer operational, it would be very helpful. Thanks Nick.
I am curious what makes you say that. If you look at places like Reddit, Proton Drive works mostly fine with rclone. My own experience of 2+ years of usage can back that up, albeit anecdotal experience.
Some of the issues people are facing (like the 2FA one or the Proton Docs one) have simple workarounds.
I may be biased here, because rclone is the only way I can access my Proton Drive on Linux. As a visionary member, I benefit from 6TB+ storage. If Proton Drive were to disappear from rclone (which I know is not the same as being marked as unsupported) I’d have no more way to access that storage.
As a result of this thread, I’ve reached out to Proton support to make sure they are aware of how important rclone’s support for the Proton Drive backend is for Linux users.
1 Like
I think we all would like to see rclone supporting Proton drive. But so far it was like pulling teeth. Somebody tried to reverse engineer Proton API and even if initially it was promising, longer term it turned to be unsustainable. Firstly it was one man show and with main actor moving to greener pastures there is nobody able or interested to carry on this path. Secondly with all this knowledge gone what we have is remote experiencing software rot. Simply as time passes it is less and less usable.
Obvious way forward would be at last Proton crew to decide that they are interested opening their system to 3rd party tools like rclone. Ideally supporting some industry standard API - S3, WebDAV or similar. Less ideal but still workable would be some custom API (official and documented). Latter it a bit like reinventing the wheel but if it makes them feel better, let it be.
But so far we have neither.
Feedback from other users, e.g.:
This is probably only thing Proton users can do short of voting with their feet if they do not get service they expect for their money.
1 Like
I am a new user of rclone and I would say at least marking it as beta in the list that is presented in rclone config would be good. I didn’t know it was considered beta until after I was already attempting to use it. Still though, I think you are correct that users will generally think that if a feature is available (even as “Beta”) that it would at least be in a usable state.
I am no more than a fairly tech savvy nerd, not really a dev or anything like that. If it is helpful for end-user types to email Proton I would be more than willing. I just wouldn’t know what specifically would be useful to ask them. Being able to interact with cloud storage in linux CLI is very valuable to me.