I tried the 1.4 alpha and found it basically useless and unusable. It also trashed my testing filesystem by creating files with infinite extensions ".conflict". Never, ever, ever, for any reason, created duplicates in a filesystem - unless I explicitly ask for it. BTsync 1.4 created 5TB of duplicate data in .conflict files. I'm on 1.3109 on my desktops and I had to force restore my Android versions as the app auto updated to 1.4 and virtually destroyed in production systems because 1.3 and 1.4 don't play well. It should have been released as a separate app so that this conflict didn't happen. It took a week of cleaning up to fix that mess and now I have to make sure that the app is frozen at that version in the play store (which screws up some other things btw). The Android version of 1.4 is also a giant battery drain and doesn't work properly with the media manager, so when a new file is synchronised it won't turn up in anything but a filemanager. This makes it worthless on mobile. It's an easy fix to hook the media intent through, but this hasn't been done. The move to a web based manager is a good one, the 1.3 linux interface is great and I use it on a 'master' file server. The decision to use IE and force it just shows how bad the evaluation process is internally. It really should have been a self contained Chrome client or internal web server that lets the user choose a browser from the start, but obviously someone has an opinion they want forced. They could have written a whole QT interface and not have it as bad as IE (even though it would still be rubbish). Qt is actually cross platform too! > I want to explicitly state that the feedback is not falling on deaf ears. Every bit of it gets pushed up, quantified, prioritized and tackled by the appropriate team The feedback may not be falling on deaf ears, but it's clear that there are people not listening or refusing to understand the nature of the product they have created. The backup functions are the LEAST useful part of the tool, yet that seems to be the focus in 1.4. Every bit of official communication has shown the complete disregard the team has for the thoughts of the people who actually use the product and a clear push has been made to move BTSync away from a synchroniser and towards a "Backup" tool [removed - please avoid insulting comparisons on forums] Seriously GUI team - your redesign is an insult not an improvement. When I saw the first 1.4 alpha I realised that the team at BT wanted to move the product away from what I thought were it's most valuable features. ie; encrypted, server less, native to the file-system, real-time file synchronisation. BTsync 1.3 was almost something I'd be willing to actually buy. I'm now very actively testing Syncthing and I plan to deploy it as a primary system (even though it's miles behind BTSync1.3) because the devs of that product haven't assumed I have the intellect of a dead fish. I can see that something has happened that has gutted a strong product and turned it into something I would expect from management instead of developers.
