tjluoma

I was editing /usr/local/scripts/superduper-when-was-last-successful.sh in my text editor (BBEdit). (N.B. /usr/local/scripts/ is sync’d across several Macs via BTS.) Suddenly BBEdit reported that the file had been moved, and it was now at /usr/local/scripts/.sync/Archive/superduper-when-was-last-successful.sh Since I was only editing the file on this Mac (and, in fact, the file is newly created, on this Mac, about 30 minutes ago), I have no idea how/why BTS suddenly decided to archive it, but it appears there was a sync conflict of some kind, and BTS clearly chose the wrong one. I’ve had to pull a few files out of `.sync/Archive` lately, so this isn’t the only time it has happened, but it is the first time that I have seen it happen as I was actively working on a file. All Macs are running latest version of Yosemite and BTS version 2.0.105. The really weird thing is that there was no file anymore at /usr/local/scripts/superduper-when-was-last-successful.sh. The only copy was the archived copy.

I generally only have the default columns on, because the window still does not resize well if you add others, and I end up having to scroll horizontally, but I will add them to check it out.

Judging by the 'Status' line in the app, it appears to be re-transferring, but OTOH I don't see duplicates in .sync/Archive/ which I would expect if they were being "replaced". Maybe it just appears to be re-transferring but it's actually just going through a renaming process. It seems slower than I'd expect.

1. I am going to be renaming/re-organizing a large number of of large files. 2. All of the files, as they exist right now, are already on 3 different Macs which are spread across the Internet. 3. The 3 Macs are are already in full sync via BTS (2.0.105). 4. Given that some of these files are several GB large (video files), I do not want to them to re-sync, I want BTS to say "Hey, 'File A' is now know as 'This Is A Much Better Name.ext' so please rename accordingly. Is there anything I can/should do to make sure that change happens as efficiently as possible?

I upgraded a machine from 1.4x to 2.x and now I have a bunch of old 1.4-style folders. I only want to use 2.x-style folders. What's the easiest way to get rid of all of the old ones?

If you want to choose the folder on the other Mac (the one which is getting “Documents 1” etc), right-click on the folder in the BTSync list, and then choose “Disconnect.” Say “yes” to removing local files. Then you can connect it manually and choose the existing folder that you want to use.

Yes, all 3 Macs are linked together in My Devices.

3 Macs, all running Sync 2.0.93 I created a new folder on one Mac, and then added it to Sync. It says “No Peers” and hasn't shown up yet on the other 2 Macs. That's supposed to happen “auto-magically” right? I quit/restarted BTS on one of the Macs where it didn't show up, and when it started up, the new folder appeared on it and the other Mac. I'm not sure if it was just really coincidental timing, or if that was enough to “kick” it into noticing a new folder had been added.

I reinstalled OS X on my MacBook Pro, and now I have two devices listed as “Pro”: How can I remove the 2nd one?

Oh, come on. “There has been no loss of functionality, only an imposition of numeric limits” is a semantic dodge. Syncing folders was unlimited in one version, and limited in the next, but somehow that is NOT a loss of functionality? I mean… you can make whatever argument you want, but trying to claim that isn't a decrease in functionality is absurd. The number of folders that you can sync is part of the functionality of the program. You can argue all you want about sustainability and fair pricing, but you can't say “Well, it's the same system, they just imposed some limits on it” because the lack of limits was part of what defined the previous system. I intend to pay for the subscription because I like some of the other features (especially the ability to pause individual folders, which wasn't in 1.x) so this isn't going to interfere with my ability to use the program, but I can't understand the people who keep trying to deny that something was taken away from 1.x to 2.0.

FWIW I have been doing this for quite awhile now (it's one of the main reasons I started using BTS) and it works great.

I have all of my Macs set to "Disconnected" (see image) but they all keep getting reset to "Connected" no matter how many times I tell them not to. I wonder if this preference is being lost whenever BitTorrent Sync crashes, which is a lot.

That is, by far, the least-elegant workaround I have heard in a long-time. Coming in as a close second is the process required to move a 1.4 BTSync folder to 2.0. Not a great job, guys.

This is something _way_ too clunky. I ought to be able to move the folder in the Finder and BTSync should be able to recognize it from the information in the '.sync' folder.

Yes, but you glossed over the actual point: “BitTorrent Sync will work tomorrow exactly like it works today.” “Yesterday” we could sync an unlimited number of folders for free, and today we can sync 10. The point that you are missing (or ignoring) is that they said one thing (base 1.x features will remain free, new 2.0 features will be "pro") and did another. And there's still no answer to what we are getting for $40/year to explain why it isn’t a $40 purchase of version 2.0 and all 2.x updates. It sounds like the only "feature" we're getting for $40 is a guaranteed revenue stream for BitTorrent, which is good for them, less so for us. An annual fee means that we are locked into continually paying for today's features, regardless of whether there are any substantive improvements to the app. Maybe next year it goes to $50, or $100. Maybe next year "Pro" can only sync 50 folders for $40, and it's $100 to sync "unlimited" folders. If I had paid for version 2, I would be able keep using it. But instead I have to keep paying for it, and trust that BitTorrent, Inc. will keep making improvements to it. Also, we trust that they're going to stay in business. Maybe in 5 years they decide they no longer want to keep doing this, so I would have spent $200 only to now have an app that I can’t use anymore. None of this is to say that the app isn’t worth $40. It is. My concern isn’t the $40 for a year. My concern is $40 per year for software that will (it appears) cease to work if the company behind it decides to stop supporting it or goes out of business. I thought BitTorrent Sync was going to make me less reliant on a company like Apple or Dropbox, because I was syncing my files directly to my own computers. Instead, it appears that I am just reliant on a different (and much smaller) company instead. I thought I was going to be buying software (or a software license, you know what I mean). Instead I'm signing up for a subscription service with an annual fee. For example, I bought Transmit (the Mac S/FTP app) for $30. I can continue to use that even if Panic (the developer) goes out of business, because S/FTP is a standard protocol that I fully expect to be around in 10 years. Quoting again from the article you cited: "[bitTorrent Sync] will work exactly like today even 10 years from now…” The really big asterisk to that is “Assuming that BitTorrent, Inc. is still around and still supporting it, and assuming you're still paying your annual fee.” That’s disappointing, not because I'm cheap or don't realize the value of the software, or any of the other slams you might want to make against me, but it's disappointing because BitTorrent Sync now comes with a huge question mark for the future. I've looked at the alternatives, and so far I think they're worse, so I'll be sticking around. I'm just disappointed. Hopefully enough people will sign up and keep up so that they will be able to continue to develop it in the future. Obviously that's the plan. But I've seen a lot of software companies come and go.

This bug has been around since 1.4. If you use a lot of columns, BTSync puts the "Share" button too far off to the right. Now even the "connect" button is nearly hidden. See screenshot attached.

> the people for whom security is a 100% matter, not a 99% matter, best choose a solution that allows, and can withstand, scrutiny. Oh, please. Just stop. (I apologize in advance because this is me writing when I'm tired and a little more cranky than usual. Please don't take any of this personally.) 100% security is a lie. It's a myth. It doesn't exist. Open Source does not mean 100% secure (See `bash` and `openssl` for recent examples.). It's an unfounded lie that keeps getting repeated because it's an attractive myth among a certain group of people who have a lot of choices for open source software, but always want to attack closed source software as being Not Good Enough. (Not that they'd be willing to _pay_ for an open source program, of course, because "freedom" means never having to pay anyone to write flawless software.) I assume that the Hackito post was some combination of an attempt to grab some headlines and attention while spreading FUD about a closed source program in some ill-conceived attempt at pressuring the BitTorrent Sync developers to open source their app. As for Pulse, they have an FAQ: > Why is the setup so complicated in comparison to BTSync? > https://pulse-forum.ind.ie/t/why-is-the-setup-so-complicated-in-comparison-to-btsync/444 > > Security over convenience. There you go. If you want security over convenience, you have an option available. Lots of options, in fact. (Is it, in fact, more secure? Chances are good that you don't know, because you haven't looked at the source, but you might assume that other people have, and so it's more secure because more eyes have looked at it. Except, of course, for the bash and openssl counter-examples. And those are just the most recent ones.) If you want 100% security, encrypt the hard drive, disconnect the power from the computer, and lock it away in a bank vault. </rant> Now I'm off to replenish my caffeine supplies.

Ha, yeah, no, one of these is local but the other is across the Internet, so it's definitely not prime network conditions.

The folder in question is about 80 GB, so I'd really rather not have to re-download it all. That being said, I'm not sure that it was actually any quicker to use the "pre-seeded" folders, because of how long the hashing took. Oh well. I suspect this is something that will get better as BTS gets older. I do _really_ like the ability to sync a folder wherever it is, rather than it having to be in the ~/Dropbox/ folder. That's quite nice.

I have two folders on two separate computers which are _nearly_ in sync, but not 100% (they were previously syncing via Dropbox). I moved them out of Dropbox on both computers, and set them up to sync (added the folder on one computer, then copied the Read/Write key to the other computer, and set them to sync. I _assumed_ this would be a fast process of checking to see that each folder is 99% of the other, and syncing the differences. Instead, it has been running for almost 24 hours, and transferred many, many, many gigabytes between the two computers. A. Should this have worked like I expected? B. One was a Mac running 1.4.91 and the other was running 1.4.99. Could this be why it hasn't been working efficiently? (I am about to update both to 1.4.103) C. What should I have done differently to make this work better?

Am I correct in assuming that this is a typo and instead of "abc.ext" it should be "*.ext" to ignore all type .ext ?

Is there a list of all the "reserved" characters somewhere?

I have been testing OwnCloud and found that it will not sync files with a : or a | in the name. I cannot find any information about characters which BitTorrent Sync considers "illegal" but I thought I should check.