gurkesaft

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gurkesaft

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Yeah I'm definitely a whiny customer, which is totally ridiculous given its a free service. Suppose it's just tough to see an elegantly solved (important) problem suddenly return to unsolved. For the few that might be in my situation, a temporary solution (i.e. will work as long as the 2.0 clients are backwards-compatible with 1.4 shares) is to have the 1.4 mac create the share, and install 2.0 on everything else. For some reason downgrading to the "latest" 1.4.111 on windows / osx + 1.4.65 android team stalls out whenever I try to get them to sync (used to work with previous versions), so I lost about 4 hours trying different things & clean installs to get it to work. The above solution fixed it finally. Thanks for the replies, Jack
  2. 10.6.8 is still available for sale from apple and receiving security updates.
  3. This is bananas! I love sync, but I don't want to upgrade my *very stable* machine to the latest Apple boatware. The reviews of Yosemite are majority 1/5 for a reason. Can the developers please at least let us use a backport with no support / at our own risk? A 3rd party client? My OSX is still supported by Apple; it's not like I'm running Windows 95! It's crazy that I have to break all the installs on my computer and make it slow just to "keep up" with sync. Now I have to look into other options, which is super sad, because it used to just work. Also, v1.4.111 is always complaining to me about upgrading, too, so that's no fun. Even when I tell it not to keep checking, it always does. ARG! -A drifting customer
  4. Yeah, I get this too. My workaround is to remove / re-add the folder. I seem to have to do this a lot. I contacted the devs and they said (at least in my case) it's a known problem with 'merging the folder structure' and will have a fix in an upcoming release. I hope this is soon because it's currently very unreliable! More so than it used to be! -Jack
  5. This program has already solved all of my life's problems, but here are some feature votes: I'd like to add a vote for the option to browse files on my other devices using the desktop app (i.e. functionality similar to what the android app already does), so we can basically have a non-synced archive access for devices not needing all the data. I also think it will eventually be important to be able to browse the older versions of files from any device on the network. If I am editing a file locally, it is not being versioned on my local machine; this means if I want to recover a previous version I have to physically leave my work station to find one of the other computers! I know... "first world problems", but would not be so easy if one computer is across the country. Alternatively: add an option to sync the synArchives? Cheers, Jack
  6. Hello, Does btsync recognize when files have moved or when folders get renamed? I noticed when I moved 10GB of photos to a different folder it appeared to re-index and start transferring all of the files (but then the transfer seems a bit faster). I have also noticed that when I did this, the 10 GB of photos were duplicated to the SynArchive on the other computers. If we're just moving files around inside an archive or renaming folders, it would be nice not to have to version them. I am assuming the index has a unique fingerprint for each file in the archive? If so, one could check if this fingerprint exists in the index prior to archiving (or transferring) to speed things up and save hard drive space. Cheers, Jack
  7. Could we have a roadmap? It might reduce the number of questions.
  8. Hah, just had that happen to me. I wouldn't call this "confused". What I mean by "confused" is "files not syncing indefinitely". BTSync so far has always recovered from all the weirdness I've accidentally imposed. For me, the folder thing falls more under the category of "cute". "Awwww, you're trying so hard to sync while I move stuff around!"
  9. I don't think even dropbox does this; I recall several occasions waiting for a big sync to finish so my recent files would update.
  10. It seems to be rocket science for most sync software. The usual behavior I'm used to is get confused for some reason start a gigantic resync loop over everything new small changes have to wait 4 days, provided another ubersync doesn't start again I feel like most sync software out there is just barely working.
  11. I can NOT seem to confuse this program! I have moved huge amounts of data in and out of the shared folder, shuffled things around, lost and recovered data. Incredible. I also noticed that, while there is a 13 GB queue to download (first sync of one device), when I changed a small file, it immediately propagated to the other computers during the big sync. I don't know how you guys programmed the priorities, but it's amazing that I don't have to wait for the big sync to finish before little "current" events get processed. Great work!
  12. It would be nice to be able to remotely restore previous versions from other machines. Each machine could index the archive folder and send this information upon request, allowing one to remotely download and restore a previous version.
  13. I would guess there is plenty of money to be made without changing the P2P functionality. For example, paying for integrated 100% up-time cloud storage with public links to files, a web interface, etc. Once we're all hooked on this beautiful (lightweight!) app, add a few GB of cloud and there would be no reason for dropbox anymore. I currently have 4 sync apps running right now, all serving different purposes: Dropbox = fast & free but small Cubby = slower stopgap solution for my large, less-changing data, no delta transfer aerofs = incredibly slow, with no information about sync status, no delta transfer, but infinite storage btsync = Trying it out. Hopefully will replace AeroFS and Cubby, but I'll need dropbox for public links and 100% uptime web access. I can't ask collaborators to install software when I send them large files. So, I won't be upset if btsync eliminates the need for all others. (And at some point, I want to pay someone for solving my problems anyway. You guys ought to have a donation link in case this works for me!)
  14. I am also 100% for this idea! Or a similar idea: 3) Have a notification when a new device is trying to connect, that requires approval from one of the existing devices. Even if "denying a new device" requires that the key be randomized and re-entered on all the devices (as I suspect it would for security reasons), this would eliminate the threat of a stolen key (as well as prompting users to think about how to avoid losing keys). In terms of user interface, this could be a "manual approval of new members" checkbox that is by default unchecked.