fnordsensei

Right… For most people, "native" on MacOS would mean a desktop application, compiled to the correct architecture. If it's running translated/emulated, or it's not the desktop application, it wouldn't count as "native" in a strict sense of the word. Compare, would users of Outlook, Lightroom, Photoshop, or any other app be happy with the answer "just get the mobile app"? With all that said, Resilio Sync hasn't historically received updates very quickly, even when the architecture wasn't changed, so we might have to sit tight for a while for a native build.

If all individual users in the Family versions sees all shares, then this is identical to simply using the same profile on all family devices, regardless who is using that device. What does the Family version offer over the Home Pro version?

We use Resilio in the office, with a single server as the intersection point of all shared folders. On that server rclone runs once an hour to back up data to Backblaze B2. It's very efficient and quite cheap. So far our B2 bill is pretty consistently between $2 and $5/month. Let me know if you want example scripts and so on.

It seems to have worked. Thank you!

I've noticed that Resilio now only runs on my Linux box while I'm actually SSH'd in. This seems to be a new development, and I'm not sure how it would have happened. Is this a setting that can be tweaked or is there something more funky going on?

That's really odd. It doesn't have to be weirder than this: Just replace "Dropbox" with "Bittorrent Sync" and "account" with "identity". Edit: Also, thanks for listening to the feedback.

Agreed. It's unsolicited, and it's therefore spam. If you're going to send third party promotions, please make damn sure that it is apparent when signing up and give the option to opt out, both when signing up and afterwards.

It's pretty simple: it's counterintuitive that you have to create an identity and then get rid of that identity in favor of the one you wanted to use from the start. Look at what the user wants to achieve in this context: Start the newly installed program, enter a license and watch the correct folders appear. It took me some time to understand how to do this on a new machine as well and I'm a UX designer—I stare at weird design solutions all day. There is a problem, whether perceived or not. If in doubt, get some users in and do some usage testing.

Thank you for making the 10 folder limit change. Although I'm paying for the pro version, and quite happily so, it makes it much easier to motivate people around me to get the application.

​Alright, will collect and send. Same identity, I have connected the share to a non-empty folder (i.e., the standard Pictures folder on a mac, which is mostly empty on a new machine, but not quite), but I have not touched anything on the machine where the folder was duplicated.

I use an Ubuntu server as my main target for BTS shares. I recently started getting back damaged files from it. Amongst other things, I have a wallpaper share, and this is one of the wallpapers from there. As you can see, it's not feeling too well. A lot of the images look like this, but not all. Checking in on the shares, I now see that there are two "pictures" shares (which is where I keep the wallpapers). One is Pictures, and the others is Pictures (1). Looking into the web admin of BTS on the Ubuntu server, I see that the only share present is the Pictures (1). A couple of questions arises: what has happened, why has it happened, and what do I do about it? Will you be needing a log?

Thank you. Stuff is on the way!

There are some things with Bittorrent Sync 2.0 that are really weird, but I'm not exactly sure whether they are UX problems or programming errors. I've recently reinstalled OS X on my Macbook, and BTS becomes unresponsive and crashes a lot. Connecting and disconnecting folders will make the program crash, for example. That is a functional problem, I'm sure. However, it also does stuff like this: I.e., it uses all available processor cycles to do seemingly nothing. The status row is completely empty, nothing is being transferred. Today is day two since reinstalling OS X, and it still hasn't actually started to sync back the content in question, I think. I say "I think", because it's not really telling me what's going on. The event log shows that it indexed something half an our ago. The UI is locked up with the spinning ball of doom (does the UI run in the same thread as the rest of the program logic?). Overall, I feel like BTS 2.0 has some really great features, but it feels less reliable and it seems harder to understand what's going on than in 1.4, which obscures the great stuff that I'm sure is in there.

Sometimes the contextual menu sync options disappear. In this case, I'm syncing the system standard "movies" folder from my mac from other devices, but I have it set on partial sync on the mac. From this folder in particular, the sync options disappear, while they appear for other partial syncs that I also have. How do I get them back for the movies folder? Movies: Another share:

I'm not sure if this is the case, but sometimes when syncing stops and then starts (for any reason), it starts counting from 1% again, but then it's 1% of the remaining chunks, not 1% of the file.

Same here.

You misunderstood me. A 100% matter, meaning a 100% priority. Your interpretation is a truism—of course it is not possible.

I just set up a completely new installation of Sync across three devices (due to a upgrade process that resulted in disaster), and the camera does indeed become a 1.4 folder. This when installing from scratch, 2.0 across the table.

One thing you could do that would provide value for the price charged is to give PRO users the ability to share individual files and folders with web links. This would mean that a file or folder would have to be routed through a server that downloads the file and retransmits it over HTTP. This would be great when one needs to share a single file or folder with someone who either don't have (or aren't allowed to install) Sync, or to whom you only want to give that one file as a once off.

I can't use or pay for 2.0 even if I want to. I can't tell all the people around me whom I've recommended Sync to, to upgrade to a version that they need to pay for. Therefore, I'm stuck at 1.4, since I won't be able to upgrade my entire network of friends and colleagues to 2.0, and I share folders with them. I. e., the 10 folder limit will make it useless for them, and not all will want to pay for the additional features.

This is just too poorly executed. We should have been your greatest advocates, potentially bringing it into companies and to people around us. No amount of advertising can beat a large, vocal and happy user base. You built that quite well during the beta period, and now you seem quite determined to flush it down the toilet. Go and study Evernote, and take notes (perhaps using Evernote) on how they grew their paying user base. They started with a very large and very satisfied free user base. They don't do this by crippling their product. Go and read up on them. http://allthingsd.com/20131226/evernote-ceo-phil-libin-on-turning-loyal-users-into-paying-customers/

The 10 folder restriction is a really poor business decision. I think this may actually cause a mass exodus. It's better to have people using your product than that of a competitor, after all. If they do, they remain a potential upgrade. If they move to a competitor, they are much less likely to come back even if they suddenly need the Pro features. Placeholder files is a great example of a Pro feature. The artificial share restriction is just weird. There's no added value, just diminished value. Make 2.0 free version to be on par with 1.4, or live with the consequences. Make this decision quickly, people are already stirring.

Top comment on the Hacker News thread: I love BT Sync, and will most likely continue to use it, but the author has a point. As long as the implementation details remain unpublished, it's impossible to verify your claims. Therefore, the people for whom security is a 100% matter, not a 99% matter, best choose a solution that allows, and can withstand, scrutiny.

+1 on this one. Sounds scary. The conclusions section from the article: 5. TL;DR & ConclusionsProbable leak of all hashes to getsync.com and access for BitTorrent Inc to all shared data.Change of sharing paradigm that introduced this vulnerability happened after the first releases. This may be the result of NSL (National Security Letters, from US Government to businesses to pressure them in giving out the keys or introducing vulnerabilities to compromise previously secure systems) that could have been received by BitTorrent Inc and/or developers.Leak about the private network addresses of clients that gives indication about where and what to attack.Probable multiple vulnerabilities of the clients.Bottom line: Do not use for sensitive data. Discussion on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8618067

btsync://secret doesn't do anything on my machine (OS X, Safari/Chrome). Does it really register the protocol? Also, I'd like to encode a default directory as well, to make it easy for my coworkers to add new folders with a single click, like so: