I would agree, but I find Sync's interface so much easier to use (and to explain to others). I hope the SyncThing guys keep working on that. I also don't want a command prompt window to stay open while I'm using the app...Syncthing still feels too developer-centric rather than consumer-centric to me.
I feel that “Skip the Cloud” is misleading in that they still want us to rent the software. For me, half the point is being able to pay my money and walk away completely.
I'm trying to figure out a better solution for creative workflow management, and BT Sync was on my list before. From my (enterprise) perspective, this is how it seems to be set up:
- I get to host, configure, manage, monitor, and script my own infrastructure
- I don't get any user management or centralized auth
- Users have to create identities manually and then get people to share folders to them
But also!
- I still have to pay for the features I want, yearly, per-user
On top of that, there seems to be a lot of marketing material telling me the high-level overview, and lots of documentation telling me the low-level interface, but I'm not getting the whole picture. I'm sold on the idea, but not the implementation. There's nothing here that tells me, as a devops/IT guy, what this will do for my infrastructure or my users.
That said, there are a lot of features here that I love. Turning off 'sync all' and having placeholder files is great for a company which currently has an 80 GB SVN repository of all of our creative assets.
There's also no indication of whether I can revoke files from a user (and not just their access to future updates). When an employee/contractor leaves, I want them to stop having any of our files. Granted, they could just make copies before they get disconnected, but it's still a nice-to-have.
So, if there's any way to handle these issues (mostly authenticating users against an LDAP backend, in my case), I'm sold, sign me up. Otherwise, I have to go somewhere else (e.g. AeroFS, which can do this).
I have been using it since 1.3 (I believe) and I used to be a big fan of it.
I think BTSync's strength was that it was fairly simple, somewhat more simple type of system where you could just share key and start syncing; no account creation required. Now it seems to be departed into more with a strong push to identify based access control and such. When they started moving toward that (I've tried their 2.0 beta briefly) I just felt Syncthing is where my usecase belong. (Simply, all I wanted was a solution to move and update files from A to B to C.)
It sounds like 2.0 still provides the same functionalities, but in any case, that 10 folder limitation will not work with me anyways. I don't mind paying for what I use, but I just don't think it's a implementation I prefer any more...
This is one of the familiar "cycles of reincarnation" in software: main frame vs. local PC.
First there was the main frame, with the "PC" being a dumb terminal used to access it. Then came the PC revolution, which put everything on the desk in front of you. Next came the cloud revolution, which is really main frame 2.0 with the PC (and mobile devices) demoted to dumb terminals with better UIs. Now we're seeing a renewed movement back toward personal local computing and distributed decentralized networks, and around and around we go...
I really like the Sync UI, the functionality and the speed.
But the last time I looked at the forum there were several unanswered posts about serious bugs where files were deleted on both sync peers.
This scared me away from using it.
Now, I'm not sure if it being out of beta means that these showstoppers have been fixed or just ignored.
The stated primary goal of sync is that your files will always stay private. I wish the primary goal was that my files were not deleted.
Since it's closed source perhaps they could do better by documenting their testing strategy and coverage to convince potential users of the quality of their software.
Not too long ago you guys took a big and extensive survey. The survey had business-speak written all over it. One could sense you're going down that path in the near future; and you have.
Me and my two tablets will survive without using this service for syncing. I wish you good luck with the business model.
The only thing that is really missing for me is the partial file sync. I have for example a big folder full of podcasts that I all, kind of want on my device but dont have space for. It would be awesome to, in theory, sync my hole NAS on my phone and then only partaly download some folders.
At the moment I get around this problem by having a special 'Sync Podcast'-Folder and I just copy files into it. Since my phone is only 64GB its not really that bad, but its still more work then just a click on the device itself.
So if there is any way I can get that for free, or only pay for the app. I would be happy.
Hi there, I'm Lauren from BitTorrent. Hope this explanation helps!
When you upgrade to 2.0, all 1.4 folders will still exist. You can continue to sync your 1.4 folder with both 1.4 and 2.0 builds of Sync. The only difference is that your 1.4 folders will not gain any of the new 2.0 functionality like permissions changes and syncing on-demand.
The thing that I miss most is a good story for the cloud part. As it is, you have to keep one peer that is always on for convenience (we use a Raspberry Pi). But it would be nicer if a reputable company (rather than a random person in their forums) would offer a permanent peer.
This can be done without sacrificing privacy using a so-called 'encrypted read-only secret', which can be derived from the secret and gives the peer the possibility to sync data only in encrypted form.
It doesn't need to be a company (centralized organization). It could just as well be a band of peers that are individually unreliable but as a collective, with all their redundancy, are reliable. You know, like bittorrent.
Great that there's an API, but I'm trying to think of the best way to use this in a product. You've got to get anybody on the receiving end of data to install Sync 2.0. I wish there was a way for them to offer it as a library that could be integrated into distributed software more-seamlessly to the end-user.
I could be missing something but I think this problem (sharing) fundamentally either requires some sort of non-standard software installed or some centralized solution that can utilize standard software (for example, a web-based solution). But then it's no longer decentralized.
[+] [-] aw3c2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] urza|11 years ago|reply
http://syncthing.net/
[+] [-] higherpurpose|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benoliver999|11 years ago|reply
Public shares would be great. I know someone who distrubutes a podcast via BTSync, it'd be lovely to see that in syncthing.
[+] [-] newman314|11 years ago|reply
https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/220
BTSync seems to be handling this for now.
[+] [-] patcon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptophreak|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danudey|11 years ago|reply
- I get to host, configure, manage, monitor, and script my own infrastructure
- I don't get any user management or centralized auth
- Users have to create identities manually and then get people to share folders to them
But also!
- I still have to pay for the features I want, yearly, per-user
On top of that, there seems to be a lot of marketing material telling me the high-level overview, and lots of documentation telling me the low-level interface, but I'm not getting the whole picture. I'm sold on the idea, but not the implementation. There's nothing here that tells me, as a devops/IT guy, what this will do for my infrastructure or my users.
That said, there are a lot of features here that I love. Turning off 'sync all' and having placeholder files is great for a company which currently has an 80 GB SVN repository of all of our creative assets.
There's also no indication of whether I can revoke files from a user (and not just their access to future updates). When an employee/contractor leaves, I want them to stop having any of our files. Granted, they could just make copies before they get disconnected, but it's still a nice-to-have.
So, if there's any way to handle these issues (mostly authenticating users against an LDAP backend, in my case), I'm sold, sign me up. Otherwise, I have to go somewhere else (e.g. AeroFS, which can do this).
[+] [-] unsignedint|11 years ago|reply
It sounds like 2.0 still provides the same functionalities, but in any case, that 10 folder limitation will not work with me anyways. I don't mind paying for what I use, but I just don't think it's a implementation I prefer any more...
[+] [-] mieses|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiritplumber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|11 years ago|reply
First there was the main frame, with the "PC" being a dumb terminal used to access it. Then came the PC revolution, which put everything on the desk in front of you. Next came the cloud revolution, which is really main frame 2.0 with the PC (and mobile devices) demoted to dumb terminals with better UIs. Now we're seeing a renewed movement back toward personal local computing and distributed decentralized networks, and around and around we go...
[+] [-] danudey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bazookajoes|11 years ago|reply
But the last time I looked at the forum there were several unanswered posts about serious bugs where files were deleted on both sync peers.
This scared me away from using it.
Now, I'm not sure if it being out of beta means that these showstoppers have been fixed or just ignored.
The stated primary goal of sync is that your files will always stay private. I wish the primary goal was that my files were not deleted.
Since it's closed source perhaps they could do better by documenting their testing strategy and coverage to convince potential users of the quality of their software.
It also scares me that bug reports are managed on a forum rather than through a bugtracker: http://forum.bittorrent.com/forum/108-sync-troubleshooting/
[+] [-] webwanderings|11 years ago|reply
Me and my two tablets will survive without using this service for syncing. I wish you good luck with the business model.
[+] [-] nickik|11 years ago|reply
At the moment I get around this problem by having a special 'Sync Podcast'-Folder and I just copy files into it. Since my phone is only 64GB its not really that bad, but its still more work then just a click on the device itself.
So if there is any way I can get that for free, or only pay for the app. I would be happy.
[+] [-] aw3c2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newman314|11 years ago|reply
It looks like the 1.4.x era folders are now tagged as "Classic" and has a difference in capability.
[+] [-] laurenBT|11 years ago|reply
When you upgrade to 2.0, all 1.4 folders will still exist. You can continue to sync your 1.4 folder with both 1.4 and 2.0 builds of Sync. The only difference is that your 1.4 folders will not gain any of the new 2.0 functionality like permissions changes and syncing on-demand.
[+] [-] microtonal|11 years ago|reply
This can be done without sacrificing privacy using a so-called 'encrypted read-only secret', which can be derived from the secret and gives the peer the possibility to sync data only in encrypted form.
[+] [-] newman314|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrusi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steeve|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptown|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewstuart2|11 years ago|reply