Oh, and here you are! Great!

Awesome, thanks! Will pass this on to them. I'm hoping to get them to join the conversation at some point.

I'm passing these questions on to my cousin. I know he's in a meeting right now, but will try to get an answer for you ASAP.

Disclaimer: Jose (CEO) is my cousin. I'm extremely happy and proud to finally see him turn years of effort into a great product.

Any questions you have I can forward to him, and/or will try to get him to join the conversation.

> "I wasn't even sure whether it was Linux or BSD based or something else until halfway down the front page, and had to check the Developers section to find out it's based on Ubuntu."

Really? Are those really worth complaining about? If anything, successful OSes (based on user base) have taught us that marketing should focus on user-centric features first, technical ones second.

Package managers are user-centric features and I'd certainly never install a Linux distro that doesn't use apt. It's fairly important information.

You'd never install a non-apt system? You should try a pacman based system, I find it to be nicer, because it embodies the Arch philosophy of keeping things simple.

So simple it didn't even have package signing until a year or two ago. No thanks.

And ... ?

It currently has package signing, right? What's the problem? I'm confused at how a historical problem that has been fixed even matters when discussing why or why not to use it. It's like saying you wouldn't use OS X because 10.1 didn't support Intel processors.

And SecureApt [1] didn't exist until 2003.

[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/SecureApt

You must be new to Linux. Knowing which distro and version it is built on immediately tells you a great deal about what "user-centric features" are available in it, without having to list and explain them all.

And this is HN, man. For the average poster here, "technical" features and "user-centric features" are one and the same.

Uhm, OK.

Aw Jorge :), don't be shy. High five.

You could use Jumpcut: http://jumpcut.sourceforge.net/

BuzzData's UX designer + front end developer here.

We're definitely working on all this ;) - stay tuned.

Because it has a more explicit interface (vs. Dropbox's "implicit" interface.)

That is, for what I can see with Receivd the user explicitly "opens" an app (as they're used to doing for almost anything else on their computer), which in turn clearly states "drag and drop files here to share."

With Dropbox the user needs to understand the concept of a shared folder that "magically" syncs with other computers. For many users this is an alien concept and may confuse them. I know of many people who have a Dropbox account, yet use the service exclusively through the web interface, simply because typing a URL, logging in, browsing for a file, clicking and downloading it is a concept they "get."

There's no such thing as "one size fits all" in this world---specially when it comes to user interface design.

Edit: I should clarify I do not work for Receivd, nor have any connection with the team, so I don't speak for them. This is just my assessment as a UI designer.

Minusfive's point of view tracks with years of working with non-technical customers, many of whom have a mental model suggesting that files "live in" the application as opposed to being in a folder somewhere.

I don't know how far dragging and dropping files is going to get them (many of my users could not locate a file if it bit them on the nose), but hey, it might work.