I don't think a lot of people know you also support Borg 1.x (if you don't absolutely correct me!)

It would be incredible if you started to look into S3 compatible object stores, unless you have made a business decision not to support it.

Thank You for providing an affordable option for self hosters.

Depending on the usecase, rclone can expose an S3 endpoint via `rclone serve s3` to route to another protocol, eg sftp.

I mention it not to shill rsync.net, but to shill rclone, because when I discovered it I was even more impressed with it.

Obviously having to run a command and apply some amount of plumbing is different to a service just providing that API at the outset so the applicability for users will differ but still, rclone is very cool!

We will continue to specialize in filesystem provision, not object storage.

However, we do support interoperating with block storage, such as 's5cmd':

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44248372

... and, of course, rclone, which you can invoke remotely, on our end to move data between cloud accounts, etc.

Thank You for that link!

> not object storage

Happy to email you, if that's better, but is this because of unsustainable competition in the space or the tremendous volatility in consumption that object storage customers bring to the table?

I ask because in this current market, I would imagine investing in storage infrastructure is painful, but then I wonder, you are still in the storage infrastructure space anyways, so it likely has to do with the user behavior or user expectations or both.

Not supporting S3 (and block storage) is not a business decision - it is an ideological decision.

We want to live in a world of UNIX filesystems and we want those to be available in the modern "cloud" ecosystem.