boxcryptor 's FILE based encryption is WAY better than competitor's

ccchan

It's a close source program, I can only trust it with worth-less things.

For why it's better,

I am using the free version.

I got TONS of 5GB movies.

BC allow files > 5GB (competitor ctmt dont, unless using webdav/ftp),
and allow DIRECTLY play from google file stream. (ctmt need decrypt the WHOLE file before hand)
Also, +/- file name encryption, when rclone sync google drive 1 to google drive 2,
when error detected, I can easily delete the problem file and upload JUST that file.
(ctmt use a vault approach, I just lost a vault by cant open it suddenly, after moved
all the files to boxcryptor)

but as said, I cant turst anyone ENTIRELY,
so I will use boxcryptor for movies, un-important things (already thanks alot),
while keeping a BACKUP/COPY of thing on cloud by ctmt (just a copy mostly,
remmeber that a vault easily lost. they got a "sansitier". let see if I can
resuce back my vault).

ccchan

actually it's not the end of the good point of BC.

uploading a 5GB movie + encrypt it when uploading it Fxxxing trouble.
upload mostly fail.

yeah, ctmt allow offline encryption, but as a vault I don't have faith in them.

BC, also allow offline encryption.

so I encrypted the 5GB movies first,
then upload to google by rclone.

this way of separate encrypt and upload is far more stable than doing both at the same time.

ccchan

ps:

ctmt allow 5GB file upload/download by webdav/ftp etc.

BUT it WONT allow playing 5GB file directly becoz direct play is not supported thru cyberduck i think.

at least I cant do so.