Everyone who donates is eligible to download a special
version of FreeFileSync without any advertisements,
including a few of bonus features.
It is built from a different source, so it's neither free or open source. Not that anything wrong with it, but it should probably not be distributed under the same name - https://freefilesync.org/faq.php#donation-edition
This project is kinda wonky from a free/open-source perspective. It's ostensibly licensed under GPL-3 (i.e., there's a source zip which has a License.txt that's GPL-3), but it otherwise acts like freeware with a single developer.
It has a history of bundling file-droppers/malware; there's a donation edition with a different feature set, with some extra features (including removal of arbitrary limitations on the regular versions); the installers are binary blobs, and there's no attempt (and passive hostility) towards integration with distros and package managers; source control isn't provided, and there's basically no attempt to create a dev community.
The binary installers may or may not include things that are not in the provided source code, like installer and ad systems. That's not really cool.
Last I checked, it looked like the difference was entirely in the installer, with the program just checking for a registration file at run time. Has that changed? Was my assessment wrong?
One issue we've had with FreeFileSync is that the 'portable' functionality of it is a paid-only feature. As are removing ads. We'd rebuild it ourselves and rename it if needed, but the source code requires patched libraries and has no/incomplete build instructions. Neither I nor anyone else I know was able to get it to build, at least over the many years I played with it. That's why the version we make available at PortableApps.com is still version 6.2, that last version that didn't purposely break portability.
The killer feature of this over rsync or rclone (which I love and use almost daily) is pre-run inspection and conflict resolution for each individual file. You know when you need it, and when you do, FreeFileSync shines.
For those mentioning WSL enabling using rsync on Windows: have been using it with Cygwin for years, zero issues. So, WSL wasn't a hard requirement.
I can also recommend Cygwin, and I really don’t understand why so many people seem to have either completely overlooked it, or outright dislike it. It’s so much better than having to keep a full blown WSL “VM”/container just to get access to basic tools.
I've used FreeFileSync to keep two Windows machines in sync for years. It works incredibly well. It's very fast too; copying lots of files in Windows is often bafflingly slow. Whatever this tool does is not.
I finally quit using it because I got Starlink at my house and now have enough bandwidth to just let Syncthing keep the machines in sync. But if you need to sync through a hard drive you carry around FreeFileSync is great.
This is due to parallel (threaded) copying, which is a paid-for feature in recent versions.
If you need fast copying, "robocopy" comes bundled with Windows and it has /mt option that allows spawning multiple copying threads. This is as fast as gets, beating even this tool with ease.
This used to be my go-to sync software. I used it via portableapps on Windows. I stopped using it in favor of free portable syncing software when they started charging for the portable version and not allowing it to run from the PA launcher.
This tool is in my essentials toolbox. I use it for everything, backups, comparing snapshots, comparing git branches, external drives, you name it.
Inspecting file tree differences is key to all of those actions, as far as I am concerned, and FreeFileSync does it best, and is multiplatform to boot.
Freefilesync gives you a (good!) gui to observe and then resolve differences between file trees. This is useful if the keep-latest strategy all of those 'blind' sync tools doesn't (always) work for your use case. Freefilesync has let me catch accidental deletes countless times for instance. I use Syncthing and rclone as well, but for some use cases I need 'eyes'.
Overall, FreeFileSync is more like Unison [1] than like Syncthing or rsync. Though, I haven't really used rsync, so I can't make a detailed comparison.
Syncthing is automated/daemon, so the syncing happens in the background automatically. FreeFileSync's default behavior requires manual start/stop of sync jobs, though it does have an optional real-time sync feature.
The main advantage of Syncthing is that it supports multiple hosts/locations for the same backup, and that syncing is P2P between the hosts.
How come this awesome software not more discussed here ? Anyone here use it ? It literraly been a life changer for me in my backup strategy and I can't recommend it enough to everyone.
I dont see the benefits tbh, as much as people here dislike them, a web interface would be better than its own desktop application in order to manage your homelab backups from different computers.
Also, the "Donation" edition is smelly, just be honest and call it "Pro" version to give consumer rights to the buyer.
It works well for some use cases, I used it when I just had a windows desktop with 4TB acting as NAS, now I have a more mature backup strategy because I have nearly 200TB of disks.
Great software, but building it from source is complicated, as libraries need manual patching. And on Linux from version 11.6 they introduced custom binary installer, that's useful for beginners, but for power users and flatpak packagers it only brought problems.
I've essentially stopped using Unison in favor of FreeFileSync. Its GUI is much more featureful and informative, not to mention easier to use.
For example, I get live stats (bandwidth, files/second, etc. on a chart) during sync operations when using FreeFileSync. Unison only shows bandwidth, and it's usually inaccurate.
Though, I haven't used FreeFileSync with large backups yet, so I don't yet know how it compares to Unison in terms of performance.
I used a tool similar to this for many years. Then WSL happened, and I started using rsync in there instead to backup and restore stuff on Windows, just like I do on Linux.
I looked at a fair amount of sync and backup tools for macOS a little while ago including this one and couldn’t find any that copied to an external drive on connection. Only on a schedule.
Does anyone know if this is a technical limitation? It seemed like such a core thing to me but it just kept coming up missing.
For anyone mentioning rsync, I would assert that rsync is very poorly named, and has polluted the ‘sync’ namespace with a meaning outside of what most people understand synchronization to be.
Outside of rsync, the ‘sync’ term almost invariably refers to bi-directional synchronization, with data going between both systems, so when the process is complete, both sides match. Rsync does not do this—it sends files one way only, which is what most people would refer to as a ‘mirror’.
Every other “sync” tool does things bidirectionally, so rsync really doesn’t belong in a comparison with other sync tools.
P.S. I’m aware that people who have never known a world without rsync may not realize that there’s a very real dividing line here, and this concept is very much one of the first the needs to be explained to people when first learning rsync.
rsync is from 1996. I remember I told me something like "it's like rcp but only for what's changed". I agree that with hindsight mirror could be a better name and mirrordir [1] would have had to pick a different name in 1998 [2]
eps|4 years ago
chaosite|4 years ago
It has a history of bundling file-droppers/malware; there's a donation edition with a different feature set, with some extra features (including removal of arbitrary limitations on the regular versions); the installers are binary blobs, and there's no attempt (and passive hostility) towards integration with distros and package managers; source control isn't provided, and there's basically no attempt to create a dev community.
The binary installers may or may not include things that are not in the provided source code, like installer and ad systems. That's not really cool.
Dylan16807|4 years ago
KennyBlanken|4 years ago
Saris|4 years ago
JohnTHaller|4 years ago
ZoomZoomZoom|4 years ago
For those mentioning WSL enabling using rsync on Windows: have been using it with Cygwin for years, zero issues. So, WSL wasn't a hard requirement.
orev|4 years ago
canistel|4 years ago
NelsonMinar|4 years ago
I finally quit using it because I got Starlink at my house and now have enough bandwidth to just let Syncthing keep the machines in sync. But if you need to sync through a hard drive you carry around FreeFileSync is great.
huhtenberg|4 years ago
This is due to parallel (threaded) copying, which is a paid-for feature in recent versions.
If you need fast copying, "robocopy" comes bundled with Windows and it has /mt option that allows spawning multiple copying threads. This is as fast as gets, beating even this tool with ease.
account-5|4 years ago
wingmanjd|4 years ago
In my experience, the older PortableApp versions of FreeFileSync continue to work just fine.
brnt|4 years ago
Inspecting file tree differences is key to all of those actions, as far as I am concerned, and FreeFileSync does it best, and is multiplatform to boot.
howdydoo|4 years ago
rcoilliot|4 years ago
cosmojg|4 years ago
brnt|4 years ago
sidpatil|4 years ago
Syncthing is automated/daemon, so the syncing happens in the background automatically. FreeFileSync's default behavior requires manual start/stop of sync jobs, though it does have an optional real-time sync feature.
The main advantage of Syncthing is that it supports multiple hosts/locations for the same backup, and that syncing is P2P between the hosts.
[1] https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/
ZoomZoomZoom|4 years ago
FFS is closer to Rsync and the main feature is fast and detailed file tree inspection and conflict resolution with the help of GUI.
MeinBlutIstBlau|4 years ago
[deleted]
rcoilliot|4 years ago
howdydoo|4 years ago
Sources so people know I'm not crazy:
https://freefilesync.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5068
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/05/03/freefilesync-10-0/
lunfard000|4 years ago
Also, the "Donation" edition is smelly, just be honest and call it "Pro" version to give consumer rights to the buyer.
hatware|4 years ago
sandreas|4 years ago
Like - rsync
- rclone
- restic
- rdedup
- etc.
teleforce|4 years ago
[1]https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/15-749/READINGS/required/c...
[2]https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
[3]https://hal.inria.fr/IFIP-LNCS-11534/hal-02319573
butz|4 years ago
nisa|4 years ago
sidpatil|4 years ago
For example, I get live stats (bandwidth, files/second, etc. on a chart) during sync operations when using FreeFileSync. Unison only shows bandwidth, and it's usually inaccurate.
Though, I haven't used FreeFileSync with large backups yet, so I don't yet know how it compares to Unison in terms of performance.
theandrewbailey|4 years ago
Datagenerator|4 years ago
dade_|4 years ago
jbc1|4 years ago
Does anyone know if this is a technical limitation? It seemed like such a core thing to me but it just kept coming up missing.
orev|4 years ago
Outside of rsync, the ‘sync’ term almost invariably refers to bi-directional synchronization, with data going between both systems, so when the process is complete, both sides match. Rsync does not do this—it sends files one way only, which is what most people would refer to as a ‘mirror’.
Every other “sync” tool does things bidirectionally, so rsync really doesn’t belong in a comparison with other sync tools.
P.S. I’m aware that people who have never known a world without rsync may not realize that there’s a very real dividing line here, and this concept is very much one of the first the needs to be explained to people when first learning rsync.
pmontra|4 years ago
[1] https://linux.die.net/man/1/mirrordir
[2] http://www.landley.net/kdocs/als1999/Conference/PSheer2/Mirr...
jiggunjer|4 years ago
Personally I just call both types sync, and remember it can be bidirectional or unidirectional.
DerWOK|4 years ago
betwixthewires|4 years ago
wiseleo|4 years ago
ww520|4 years ago
woldenron|4 years ago
And it displays ads?
sidpatil|4 years ago
rkagerer|4 years ago
UI looks noisier to me.
chaxor|4 years ago
smarx007|4 years ago
spiritplumber|4 years ago
rspoerri|4 years ago