Jonnan001

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jonnan001

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I finally upgraded my little AWS Cloud sync server to Resilio Sync because it wasn't properly syncing with the client. However I seem to have an issue setting up a sync system with the new client - abut two out of three times when I try to manually add a folder (e.g. Options > Manual Connections > Add the key > Select a Folder), when it gets to the Select a Folder portion it hangs, (not responding). Once it's done that, Resilio Sync is done talking about it - killing and reopening either windows explorer or Resilio Sync itself doesn't fix what's broken, I have to completely
  2. The steps in the article seem to . . . utterly fail to restore my folders? I really like BTSync, and you have every right to monetize this. But while $40 a year may be worthwhile for the extra features in Pro, I suspect I'm not alone in being willing to put in more than $40 worth of work to *not* upgrade when the 'upgrade' involves losing already functional features. That is an emotional reaction, but my experience with 2.0 has sucked a lot of the joy out of being a fanboy for BTsync. BTSync 1.4 - cuz I'm still 70% of a fanboy?
  3. The more granular security in particular sounds like a useful option, and I've noticed something like the selective sync seems to have already been integrated into the android client. I do think a cloud option, or the ability to 'bridge' into another cloud service might be worthwhile. I tend to be wary of the subscription software model though (although for Enterprise use the advantages often outweight the disadvantages). Jonnan
  4. Okay, some of this is me misunderstanding the interface - getsync's 'Help' Page says 'Client' 'Sync' 'Bundle' and 'Bleep', which I don't feel *terribly* stupid as having interpreted as 'Sync Client' not 'Bittorrent Client'. But that's where I went wrong as far as support goes - I thought I *was* emailing sync support. If I'm an idiot for thinking that's not entirely clear - well, I have it on good authority I'm *not* the biggest idiot out there, clarification might be worthwhile. That said - the getsync page links to the general Bittorrent EULA, not the Sync EULA. I'm glad the EULA is found i
  5. Thanks - that definitely has the clause I was looking for. I do think getsync.com needs updated - I find only the one link to an EULA at the bottom of the page and it links to http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/eula which in turn has the clause "or other software offered by or on behalf of BitTorrent, Inc. (the "Software")". The customer support I emailed was linked from getsync.com as well. Perchance, could you show where you found the URL http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/eula-sync, or is that a legacy URL?
  6. I can't find a straight answer on this. I would like to use BT Sync at work for what is light but nonetheless 'Commercial' use. Per http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/eula it is licensed for non-commercial use only - but that eula is basically a coverplate. BitTorrent Customer Support's reply is simply - "Thank you for reporting this issue to us. (...) Currently Customer Support is only available to subscribers of Plus and Ad-Free. We suggest visiting the BitTorrent Forums at http://forums.bittorrent.com." The contact at the end of the EULA legal@bittorrent.com has not given me a acknowledgment
  7. I'm using an Amazon AWS server for the same results - you get about 30 Gig of storage that way.
  8. Not as such (Nor should there be - I think BTSync should stay with doing one thing, really well). That said if you want to do something like that I would Recommend ImageMagick - Program a batch or bash file to watch the folder and covert according to your needs.
  9. The problem I'm seeing (If I've got this reverse engineered in my head right) isn't files that don't sync, it's that if you have two (or more) files that are exact duplicates (same files and given the discrepency between BTSync and FSLint, I *THINK* it has to have the same timestamp or something else that FSlint doesn't consider important.), it *syncs* both files, but only counts them once. The immediate problem is that this mean BTSync actually syncs 97,236 files, but the interface claims you have only synced 89,291 - it *LOOKS* like about 8,000 files got lost somewhere. A more esoteric pr
  10. Running a large sync of an archive of files to make them available to some friends online, partly because I wanted to see how BTSync actually works for a large fileset. Getting differing account of the size of the files synced. My Originating machine (Ubuntu) tells me that there are 97,251 items, totalling 863.6 MB in the folder. BTSyncs interface, despite later removing and readding the folder to kick off syncs again, is quite determined that I am syncing 820.86 MB in 89291 files. My Amazon cloud server I'm syncing this too says it has received the same number of files. Removing the ori
  11. I confess, with the blog advertising examples of it being used in an enterprise environment, it hadn't actually crossed my mind to look at the EULA like I should. I'd like to use it to distribute simple autohotkey scripts that we need to keep consistent across various PC's (Helpdesk Templates mostly). But if this isn't licensed for commercial use, someone might want to mention that to your blogmeister - it's certainly being advertised as such -- last time I checked, Angie's List was not a charity --> http://blog.bittorrent.com/2014/03/06/sync-hacks-how-angies-list-reduced-their-web-deploym
  12. I'd like to see a way to genrate a non-random secret, in the same fashion as 'Passwordmaker' - if there's no reason not to, my preference would be to have passwordmaker (Which I believe is open-source) integrated for creating Full or read-only secrets. Context. Randomly generated secrets are great of course, but you have to actually share them or store them - to sync with a computer at work I have to generate the secret at home and take it with me to work, then enter it there. Password Maker is designed for creating arbitrarily complex, but non-random passwords for websites. But, if you know t
  13. I'm iffy on this. I think a BitTorrent 'pseudo DNS' is inevitable, simply because it's easy - the first thing I did was this was share my calibre library of free ebooks (Gutenberg+Baen) among my family using a pseudo-random key. But - even with the large namespace, how long is it before the same human personalities that gave us Spam and some of the more disgusting trolls out there go hunting for shared folder just looking for *any* folder to put something nawsty into, or deliberately overwrite files - nevermind one as simple as 'lolcat-pics'. As a practical matter, I can't imagine it will be t
  14. I don't know enough about how BTsync works to have an educated opinion yet, but . . . Off the top of my head I can see it working *very* well in conjuction with something like TiddlyWiki (Example TiddlyWiki Here --> http://nethack.tiddlyspot.com/ ). I'd really like to know exactly how this works. I've always liked Bittorrent just for it's elegance as a protocol, and played with trying to use a 'shared cache' in a firefox add-on (but just wasn't smart enough to make it work), but yeah, I think this is fascinating. Jonnan