w411

People keep exaggerating how unhappy "everyone" is with this change . . . it's fair to say a high percentage of this thread seems unhappy but I'm guessing the percentage of total BTsync users active in this thread is pretty minimal (I have no idea of the actual number of users of course). I can't imagine why BTsync would go back to the original unlimited folder structure. Even if 9 out of 10 users jump ship, it makes a lot more sense to support 10,000 paid users than supporting 100,000 free users.

Anyone else experienced this? Had to remove BTsync from the workstation it was affecting as it interfered with workflow. Tested with a re-install and the same issue still happens

I don't think you will find people that are happy with the change to the directory count. Logically I would say the only 2 groups would be people that are unhappy (it had a negative affect on the way they use Btsync) and people that are indifferent (it has no affect on the way they use BTsync). As far as hearing from users that feel the pro version is worthwhile, also unlikely as people typically only go looking for a way to voice their opinion when they are unhappy. It might be of advantage (and fairness) for BTsync to invite all users to weigh in on the changes, but otherwise, I would expect a heavy negative opinion in this thread.

- My OPINION is that a reduced scope is not a reduction of core functionality. Once again, allow me to put it into simpler terms: - "Agreed, sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people present incorrect FACTS to others, my apologies." - Does it make sense to you now? - now back to the actual topic "And the most important bit is not whether you or BTS think they lied, it is about us users, and what we think, since there is no future for the product unless the users endorse and support it. If users are unhappy and actually voice that to others, the product will suffer." Yes, it is absolutely about the users and what we (in this case "we" refers to the people that are happy with the product) think. There are 5 pages or so of comments at this point mostly from people that "can't believe BTsync had the nerve to mislead them" (that by the way is sarcasm), public forums like this one are often filled with the people that will put more effort into complaining about things than they ever would put into finding a solution. There will never be 100% satisfaction with any product or service, unfortunately in technology, a lot of it stems from users that don't understand how the product or service works. I'm not saying that applies to anyone in here, but I'm sure everyone has experienced seeing that in themselves or others. Take into consideration the fact that you don't see many people that are proponents of the pro offering . . . why do you think that is? Customers don't have to endorse a product or service for it to be successful, they just need to feel it's worth paying for, which I do. We all understand that people FEEL like they were lied to, whether I disagree with it or not is irrelevant, you feel lied to, they are forcing you to do something you don't want to do, the man is getting you down . . . we get it. Now how about contributing some ideas other than "put it back the way it was". Or at the very least take action and stop using the product, if they see a huge drop in user base, you better believe they will rethink strategies. Edit: I see a lot of references as to the trustworthiness of BTsync as a company, but who's to assume any of us are trustworthy, we could be shills for other competitors, developers of BTsync or just liars for fun . . . not a fact, not my opinion.

Agreed, sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people misinform others, my apologies.

You don't need the $99 plan to go beyond the user folders, the $99 plan allows backup of external drives (additional internal drives are also included in the $59 plan). The $59 plan DOES backup all user files by default but you can add any folders you like to the backup. As for being "dishonest" it doesn't violate Carbonite terms and conditions in any way and over the years my reseller reps have commented on what a slick idea that setup is. The Server plans are for systems with an actual Server OS installed on them, a home pc set up with peer to peer networking does not fall under that column. The reference to remote access to files was meaning from a system that is not a part of your BTsync devices, if you were away from your network and needed a few files. There is no remote access like there is in Carbonite/Dropbox/Drive etc. where you can enter credentials, browse for your files and grab them. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

I didn't gloss over anything all the core functions are there, just the scope of included active folders has changed. Some don't acknowledge a difference between function and scope, that's up to the individual. I don't try to "slam" anything people contribute, however people are putting more effort into singing the blues than adding anything of value, and unfortunately that's what often happens in a free community. Accountability is a rare thing these days, but it isn't just a problem with vendors & developers, users and people in general. It bothers me just as much when a thread is filled with thoughtless useless posts (hopefully mine don't fall into that category for others, and I apologize if that's the case). Every software & service comes with a huge question mark, it sucks, but we have to try to find a way to keep things as vendor neutral and available to us in case of emergency as possible. It's a never ending process. I also agree the alternatives don't seem to offer the same advantages, my business could function just fine within the 10 folder limit and I still intend to register for the pro version. BT is making a change for a reason, I don't know the reason, and from what I have read in this thread, neither does anyone else commenting in here. Hopefully they will release further details.

Clearly it's a difference of opinion, but I still feel that core functionality is not getting removed, it has had a reduction in scope in some senses. I keep seeing people refer to it as an arbitrary reduction in the number of active folders, do we know it's arbitrary, or is there some fundamental reason for the reduction? I haven't seen anything stating why that number was chosen. People keep making blanket statements on behalf of all the users, making up fiction like something that should end up with an entry on Snopes. It makes sense to post about how the change affects you: previously the software fit YOUR needs, and "reversed" the fit to YOUR circumstances. Engineers can read about your situation and get ideas about how to proceed, not listen to a couple of dozen people crying "put it back the way it was!". Sure complain about being unhappy, but back it up with how the change affects you, and how you would like to see things done instead of dredging up posts where this engineer said blah blah blah. Like none of you have ever started something and then changed part way through because you found a better way to do it??

Just had this happen after the update to 1.4.111 If I try to delete files, within 10 seconds they get put back in the folder. If I try to add files, within 10 seconds the get deleted again. No logging of the activity shows up on the other devices.

No, we don't disagree on what BTsync does, I'm not sure why you would have assumed that in the first place. Maybe I should rephrase my question to more effectively elicit the answer I am looking for, what made you decide to start using BTsync in the first place if the "service" provided is so menial to you?

Yes, if they HAD lied to original supporters/users (not customers as no one paid for anything) it would have been a bad stumble. It's unfortunate that no one will take the time to read the original "promise" that keeps being referred to: https://web.archive.org/web/20130811154750/http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/17782-bittorrent-sync-faq-unofficial/#entry44650 For people that don't want to follow the link: "Will BitTorrent Sync remain free, or will they start charging for it once it comes out of beta? BitTorrent Sync will remain free! From BitTorrent:"If tomorrow we want to charge you $100 for 10Kb transferred, stop everything related to the app or try to force you not to use BitTorrent Sync, we just physically can't achieve that!BitTorrent Sync will work tomorrow exactly like it works today, no matter what we will do. And it will work exactly like today even 10 years from now, of course, if we will have computers in future :)" (Source) ...and in publicising the start of the "beta" phase on 17 July 2013, the team commented: "And don’t worry. BitTorrent Sync is still free, simple to use, and secure. Pretty awesome, huh?"" It's still free, and there will still be a free version in 2.0

Yes, a local and cloud backup of 3 systems for $59/year . . . not as elegant as the clearly thought out and concise alternative you offered based on your own workflow, but I am only working within the limits of my knowledge. I guess as usual . . . I am wondering what your alternative solution is?

It's not rude, it's just progress . . . in technology and business and life, things constantly evolve. It just is odd to me how much effort people will put into trying to keep things the same. It was never a software intended to give you remote access to your files, but there are some very cost effective options for that out there. Personally I use SplashTop, very good value for the money. Here's just one example of how to justify the cost of BT Sync: - let's say an individual had 2 laptops and a desktop and they want to use a backup service (such as Carbonite) - on the desktop you could create a folder c:\backups\laptop01 & c:\backups\laptop02 - sync the documents and whichever folders you wanted on each laptop to the appropriate folders - purchase a Carbonite backup subscription for the desktop - you now have a Carbonite backup of all 3 systems for the price of 1

You can sync unlimited data (based on the storage capacity of the devices), between an unlimited number of devices (I haven't seen any device limits mentioned anywhere) regardless of OS across the globe . . . that seems like a pretty damn sexy service to me. But, that's just me, if you don't need any of the pro features, you can use the free version. Or if the pro version doesn't seem worth the price, go weigh out the alternatives. There are all kinds of service providers out there and I hope everyone finds what works for them, home or business.

It's almost comical seeing all the new users in this thread that FINALLY felt the need to register and invest a few minutes of their time to post "feedback". Imagine now spending 1000's of hours developing the software and interacting endlessly with the communities suggestions, complaints and bug reports. When was the last time you spent even a single 1000 hours doing something for people (other than family) and of course did it all for free? I know I haven't, and I say hats off to the developers. 3 pages of complaining with very minimal useful input, don't just bitch about how you don't want to spend money and how sad you are that "promises" were broken. @elysium "10 folders is a complete joke" - I use 4 folders folder 1 - 22 folders | 77,000 files | 115 GB folder 2 - 8,457 folders | 86,300 files | 38.6 GB folder 3 - 580 folders | 23,400 files | 60.5 GB folder 4 - 62 folders | 181,721 files | 24 GB 9,121 folders | 368,421 files | 238.1 GB @MrsAngelD "I've had multiple folders set up for a long time" - I used Windows XP for a long time, time to move forward. @michaelk42 "I buy software, I don't rent it" - That's handy, let me know where you bought your Netflix. "$40/year when there's not even hosting of data by BT?" - I feel like you may have missed the whole point of BT Sync. @hungarianhc "to thank our beta testers, we're offering a lifetime subscription option" - We all have been beta testers, how would that make sense? "Wow. Great find there. Really sad to see the company publish something like that, build a community around it, and then do a 180." - BT isn't charging for data of any kind (and I don't see why they ever would), BT is still simple, BT is still free, Bt is still secure . . . maybe you meant they did a 360? @mexter "Do you think the majority of us would have been testing version 2 knowing where it was leading?" - To one of the most flexible ways to maintain an unlimited repository of ALL of your data without having to worry about having your iCloud account being hacked . . . I'm sorry, are we supposed to be saying no here? @smajor "I've already been testing SyncThing in anticipation of this move" - I would hope people regularly evaluate all of their software and services, that's how you stay current. @delegatevoid "business support should have been something like: 24/7 technical support" - You just posted in the location for 24/7 support, better response in here than MOST paid providers that I deal with. @steo "What about adding really useful features to the Pro uses ? Like stats, option to temporally deactivate folders, or any feature request popular in these forums??" - Yes! That's how development progresses, when you can pay developers and move forward. @wiseadam "Sell outs" - . . . welcome new user with a single post that has never contributed to the community. @clouseau "Now I understand even more deebly how important it is to use and support OPEN SOURCE projects" - Support like you have demonstrated here? @greatmarko had to take MORE time to edit the profanity out of your post, fantastic to have "contributors" like you. "I'm started emergeny process to move out from BTSync in our company!" - The current version is still unchanged . . . not sure why that would constitute an emergency. "BTSync 2.0 is born dead!" - No, there are plenty of community members that understand BT is a great project and will fully support the pro version. @foo8ar "BUT i totally lost confidence in them after they have mislead on several occasions. The biggest one: we do not keep track of your communication" - Being aware of the bandwidth usages is not the same as having access to your information and "tracking" you. You can't design a system to move data without being aware of how much data you need to scale for. If you are that worried about others knowing how much data you have moved . . . perhaps the Internet isn't for you. @sebijiski "the price is really steep for what it is" - Just over $3/month . . . I probably need to get some help from you creating my monthly budget if that is what you consider a "steep" price. @kovah "Do you choose a subscription because you would present us Bittorrent Sync 3 in one year" - I hope so, and BT 4 in 2 years, BT 5 in 3 years! @fnordsensei "You built that quite well during the beta period, and now you seem quite determined to flush it down the toilet." - It's amazing how many people in here think their own opinion somehow applies to the masses. If you are that concerned about $40 I can only assume that restructuring your data to work within the 10 folder limit of 2.0 HAS to be less than an hour or two of work. "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." - I have been a paying member of Evernote for the last couple of years, they are VERY slow to answer tickets and EXTREMELY slow to implement fixes. I constantly have to use workarounds for things that don't work. The only difference with Evernote is they started with a product that was very limited, BT had the foresight to include amazing features from the start and spoiled the users who now feel entitled. For anyone else that thinks a 10 folder limit isn't enough, it's quite likely (although I'm sure there are a few exceptions) that you can restructure your data organization to work easily within those confines. If you can't, phone a friend with some logic and creativity skills. I would like to see constructive feedback about alternative services out there that people have found for syncing data. It's fine to say open source is the way to go, but open source projects die off all the time, people get busy in life or lose interest in development, and walk away after all, they aren't accountable, no one paid them any money. A few for the list: P2P GoodSync: should be called HorribleSync, most unresponsive support I have ever encountered. My first migration after Live Mesh ceased operations. I walked away from 3 paid licenses (@michael42 let me know if you would like those PAID software licenses). http://www.goodsync.com Syncthing: haven't looked into this one yet, just found it today as a result of this thread, but I will look through it. http://syncthing.net Sparkle Share: http://sparkleshare.org Aero: https://www.aerofs.com Non P2P Cubby: by LogMeIn (who by the way completely shut down their free services last year after 10 years of providing a free remote login solution). https://www.cubby.com Spider Oak: https://spideroak.com

Answered my own question, as long as it is in the root of each shared folder, it appears to apply to all files & subfolders after restarting BT Sync. considering the following are already included in the .SyncIgnore as "OS generated files": .DS_Store.DS_Store?._*.Spotlight-V100.TrashesIcon?ehthumbs.dbdesktop.iniThumbs.db Wouldn't it make sense to also include ~*.* or at the very least when you right click a folder to "Show folder preferences" at least give an option to "use predefined exclusions" the same as "use predefined hosts"?

so would this be the right syntax to add to the .syncignore: ~*.* and will it apply to all files and subfolders within the folder?

That file definitely was not in use though, it was dated November 4th and the system would have been rebooted several times since that date. Sync at some point must have caught the xlsx file after it was unlocked but before Office deleted it?

I have 4 local systems and a remote system at a vendor location. I have unlimited bandwidth but the vendor ISP has a cap of 125 GB which he just hit in the first 11 days of his month. We installed Net Balancer and the bandwidth is being sucked up by BT Sync. We have 18 GB/20,000 files between the locations total and on a daily basis probably download 250 MB of files and then create another 250 MB of new files. The last day was him turning off BT after his sync was finished for the day (but he only started that part way through the day). Any ideas why bandwidth would be so high?

I happened to find a temporary XLSX file that started with a ~ and deleted it. Within about a minute everything shows as up to date: http://d.pr/i/m0N0

Is there a way to view the files that are pending transfer as indicated by the up arrow: http://d.pr/i/JIc I did a few searches within the forums, but it is becoming more and more difficult to find information in here as nothing is segmented.

I need to restart sometimes multiple times on Win 7 Pro . . . is there an FAQ for submitting log files?

I have one system that is running a little short on space currently, and have about 8 GB of data in the .SyncArchive folder, I see how to reduce the number of days files remain in the trash, but what is the easiest and least problematic way to immediately delete files in the folder?

also all 5 machines were updated earlier today to 1.1.69 with no change in the behaviour above

BT on 5 machines, most work is done on "machine a" but currently machines b, c, d & e have 14 extra files. All new additions/modifications/deletions on machine a are still happening in real time but those 14 files were deleted from machine a about 4 days ago.