mbob

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About mbob

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. When dealing with many folders, things get quickly confusing. In my case I even have folders with the same name (but in different sub directories). So the "Name" column gives no indication which folder it is, therefore I usually display the "Path" column (which in turn contains too much information - the complete path). What I would propose: make it possible to enter a "Display Name" for each folder, and make this accessible as column in the UI. In this case it also would make sense to be able to hide the "Name" column, which is not possible now. And to make life even simpler: also add a "Category" property for folders, which could be used to group folders together (e.g. as collapisble nodes). E.g. suppose I have the following folders on disk: C:\Alice\DocumentsC:\Bob\Documents (top secret)C:\Charly\DocumentsC:\Alice\MusicC:\Bob\MusicC:\Charly\Music downloaded I then could e.g. use the folder type as category and the name a combination of both as display name: + Documents - Alice - Bob (secret) - Charly + Music - Alice - Bob - Charly
  2. Same migration path: BTSync 1.4 - tried the switch to Syncthing - then back to BTSync 1.4 (knowing that is not the ideal solution, because of usability & bugs) - now using 2.2 (and happy!) ~ 15 folders, 4 desktop peers, 4 mobile peersBTSync 1.4 was unreliable, especially with Office filesSyncthing was unreliable with completing some bigger foldersand Syncthing was a horror in setting up, since each node had to approve the other nodes, for each folder (with constant restarts necessary) ... 8 peers, 15 folders ...Syncthing was also missing the simplicity: what I like(d) with BTSync: just knowing the right key gives me access to the data (so if I am at some distant location and need access, just install BTSync, enter key, and ready - that's not possible with Syncthing)so switched back to BTSync 1.4 and learned to live with the bugsAeroFS was another option that I was thinking of, but never set it up, because some management part requires to run as appliance/VMnow switched to BTSync 2.2 and I'm happy again!Now everything is working as expected for me, and the 10 folder limit is gone ...
  3. I can confirm this ... the 2.2 UI is much more responsive than the 1.4 version
  4. Chapeau! This was definitely the right move. As many others I liked the simplicity of sharing content only by knowing the secret. I also was trying out Syncthing, but it was cumbersome since it was necessary to mutually grant access between all nodes, and also not reliable when syncing. I have been using BTSync 1.4.111 since (which also had several bugs), which was still the best solution to sync between 4 computers and 3 mobile devices (and >10 folders - not every folder should be visible on every device). THANK YOU!
  5. Probably, because it's not actively developed anymore ... Well it would be nice to see UI improvements (e.g. sorting of columns) or add the possibility to give individual names to folders, or to be able to manage remote nodes, or ... that will never happen in 1.4 But anyway you can be pretty sure that many, many users will probably use it instead of 2.0 because of the ignorance of the BTSync team!
  6. Thank you for your statement. I assume most users in this community understand why you decided to use a subscription model. Of course you need constant income in order to work on the product and improve it. But I think that's not the central point of the discussion. While you say that once you get regular subscription fees, the software continually will improve, there's also the other side (what users are afraid of - including me): the users may pay subscription "forever" without knowing if the software will improve at all (or even get worse). That's why a paid version (one time license purchase for a specific (major) version) makes sense. If the software gains new features that people like, they will buy the new version anyway. For example the 2.0-style folder are not everyone's favorite. I know many persons (including me) that prefer the key-based-1.4-folders (for their simplicity: just a secret gives access to the content - either R/O or R/W). So many people might think now, they have to pay for developments that they simply do not like or support. These users probably would not buy a new major version (I know that 1.4-style folders are still there, but the community would like to see improvements to the core functionality instead of adding more and more "useless" (from the point of view of the user) functionality). Another point why I think the subscription model is not appropriate: the software is ideal for typical unattended use: sync files among family members (with no computer knowledge), with remote servers somewhere else in the world, etc. Software that runs unattended should no be dependent on a subscription (that's what many users with technical background think probably), because then again you have to monitor all nodes if their subscriptions are still valid. The interesting point is: many users seem to be willing to pay for the software (for a major version for example), but the majority clearly states that it is not willing to support a subscription model. And I personally think the same. And for the development I think it's even better if users have to pay for new versions, because than you have to listen to the users' needs (in order to get money from the users). With the subscription model the user has no influence on the development at all. Meanwhile I also use Syncthing at the same time for 50% of my folders, and I will watch the development of both applications. Syncthing works quite stable, e.g. I never had problems that I had with BTSync (e.g. with sharing violations with Office files). But I still have to say that I prefer BTSync (actually only the 1.4-style folders). I do not like the user-concept in BTSync 2.0 at all. What I would have liked in s 2.0 Pro version: managing of remote nodes from one node (e.g. by knowing a special management-secret). So for me personally the development goes in the wrong direction, therefore I'm simply not willing to pay a subscription that supports this "wrong" development. So there is nothing left to pay for (storage, traffic, etc.) on a regular basis. You really should consider to change your license model. Martin
  7. As so many others here I'm using BTSync from the very beginning, and meanwhile I also have more than 10 folders to manage. So yes, I'm also not happy with the new limit of 10 folder introduced with version 2. But maybe I have an idea for a compromise: Apply the 10 folder limit only to v2.0 folders but not to v1.4 folders. => This would make the old promise true again (no features from the v1.4 version are lost). PS: and yes: I already moved some folders away from BTSync to Syncthing. Which works fine in general, but setup of multiple nodes is much more work. I'll keep monitoring both programs for a while, because at the moment it's really hard to decide. Subscription is no option for me. I could imagine other paying options: buying (paying once)only make the mobile apps paid (reasonable price)
  8. Good point, but what happens next when Windows machines are involved? 1) Linux FILE file 2) another Linux receives FILE.conflict file.conflict 3) a Windows machine then receives? FILE.conflict file.conflict that overwrites FILE.conflict??? 4) sync back to Linux: file.conflict delete FILE.conflict?
  9. I don't know actually ... it only happened now and then (prior the fix). Since the fix I did not observe this problem yet (but the corruption problem is not necessarily related to the sharing violation problem)
  10. I would not confirm that. It happened several times before for me, that an Excel sheet got corrupted. I usually recovered then the last working version from the sync archive folder (or other backups). Since I never found a way to reproduce this, it's hard to provide any log files. But fact is, that I experienced this more than once.
  11. see thread http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/31782-windowsword-dont-have-permission-to-write-to-the-selected-folder/
  12. I have no Antivirus installed (except MS default Security Essentials / Defender on Win 8), and I have this problem, so it is obviously not related to Symantec or Kaspersky. However, virus protection may slow down everything, and thus makes it more likely to get into timing problems. But then again: why does normal virus protection software not interfere with Office? Isn't there the same problem that virus protection needs to open the files after they have been written? Why can BTSync not use a delay? This would prevent the application from syncing temporay files also (which I often see in BTSync's history). Which issue has been causes by the delay? Actually BTSync must be able to initiate the sync process at anytime anyway (after system startup, every 10 minutes per default, etc.) - so what difference does it make to run it <n> seconds after a file has been modified?
  13. @Hopkins: I assume the main difference is/was, that in the 1.3 version there was a (10s) delay between file change and syncing. But as RomanZ already stated, this delay caused other issues. In theory I think it is correct to work without delay. Of course the goal should be to get files synced to other peers as fast as possible. I'm also not sure in what way Office (or other applications) is responsible for the problem. With Office for example I have this problem only when writing the old .DOC format, but not when using the newer .DOCX format. My theory is: BTSync needs to exclusively lock the file in order to guarantee that no one can change the files during the sync process, so that the other peers get a consistent state of the file.This lock seems to prevent applications from saving the file.Now: the question is, if BTSync can get a lock, this means the other application has no lock on the file - so why does Office not have any lock on the file while saving?Another idea: what about the use of Volume Shadow Copies (in Windows at least)? This should grant BTSync access to(a copy) of the file without interfering with other applications ...?
  14. I propose the delay should be re-introduced with the next release (which still only is a work-around) until a solution for the problem is found. Because without delay I have regularly problems (need to exit BTSync and restart after saving).
  15. How is this solved with other sync tools (Dropbox, owncloud, Seafile)? ... I never encountered similar problems with other tools. While I understand that it is a logical challenge (I don't see a solution that would work in any situation), there must be some practical solution obviously. The delay is maybe one, but actually more or less a workaround than a solution. Maybe delays dependent on file type? ;-))) a DelayedSyncList ... because it general it's good that syncing takes place as fast as possible.