kramttocs

Members
  • Posts

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kramttocs

  1. Not that I am aware of and that is an issue that hadn't dawned on me. Although depending on whether you plan on being the owner of the share to the other peers or the receiving end determines whether your situtaion is really an example of the issue I have in mind.

     

     

    So for outbound shares (i.e shares that were created) on any device registered to your identity then they should show up amongst all of your My Devices (whether sync, connected, or disconnected)

     

    But for inbound shares from another identity (or 1.4 pre-identity) those should only show up on the MyDevice device that received the share. Just because they are on that single MyDevice device does not mean that they should show up on all of the other MyDevice devices.

     

    For example:

    This is a simplified version of my setup so it's possible that starting from scratch vs an upgrade or not having a 1.4 peer would render different results. I don't know.

     

    MyDevices (so 2.0)- DesktopA and AndroidA

    Peer (1.4) - DesktopB

     

    I create a share on DesktopA. This will show up on AndroidA but not DesktopB (of course) unless I share it. *expected/desired behavior*

     

    Friend creates a shared on DesktopB and sends me the link via email. I click on the link on DesktopA and add it. It also adds it as an available share on AndroidB. *this is not expected nor desired but it's what I am seeing*

     

    Hopefully I didn't hijack your thread too much :)

  2. Understandable and ultimately it may be a bug where a precheck of the parent folders permissions are looked at although it seems more likely the root folder wasn't designed to be shared. For your last sentence though about will it cause issues, hopefully GreatMarko or RomanZ will have the definitive answer for you but if not then it sounds like you already have the answer from your earlier test.

  3. It's really unfortunate the BTSync marketing/CFO/whatever team didn't take the approach that many other bits of freeware are taking today - continue providing the free functionality, and provide additional *new* features in the pro version to entice people to upgrade.I'm stil not hot on the subscription basis they're going after, especially since there's little backend to support that would justify a subscription model. A better model would be to be able to buy each major version, with minor versions being included in the price of the major (since those should be bug fixes, minor improvements), and continuing to allow each major version to function when the new version comes out...sort of a rolling-free-version functionality (but you only get that major version feature set through purchase, while still maintaining a true "free" version that has a noticeably reduced feature set). Taking this approach, as a goodwill measure they could allow current 1.4 users to continue on indefinitely, expecting that at some point enough additional features would be added to entice most of those users to upgrade. It's pretty simple - it's easier to get people who like you/are on your side to continue supporting your product if you work *with* them. Keeping a free funcitonality and enticiing with new features is working *with( your customer base - degrading an existing product to give the *appearance* of greater functionality in the upgrade/pay/pro version is not.

     

    Well worded post. Due to beta vs release, I would scratch the legacy 1.4 and start at 2.0 (the second bolded sentence) (IF current 2.0 fit the criteria of the first bolded sentence).

    Personally I am not necessarily angry at the new 2.0 but the model you have described has a proven track record.

  4. That will have to change if BitTorrent really wants to focus on business users …

     

     

    I would elaborate some on your request.

    Like for convenience or security/privacy (i.e not backing up personal pictures to a company owned server) ? Because convenience/eyesore, eh, low priority. Security/Privacy - more valid.

     

    If this was a feature, how do you see it implemented?

    BTsync doesn't have a central way to push out settings to the devices so (if security/privacy was your thought process) it would be relying on the user to hide it.

  5. I've been using BTSync since right before the 1.4 release and have taken 2.0 alpha/beta/RTM. And in short, I like BTSync.

    But I can't imagine anyone will say that BTSync isn't without it's flaws and nuances. Be that UI or the sync functionality itself. That was fine, even expected with 1.3, 1,4, 2.0alpha/beta. Everyone knew that there would be those things.

    While the 10 folder limit does affect me, my reason for not signing up for the subscription currently is that I am experiencing the same level of issues with the official 2.0 release that I did with the others. I get out of sync messages, devices that are both online but don't show each other, approvals that never come, and other inconsistencies that are evidently not correct or as intended.

     

    So while there may not actually be an answer to this, why now? What was the reason for the public release *specifically that included a paid version* when it really seems like it's still in the 2.0 beta quality range? Or is that just my experience?

  6. From: http://help.getsync.com/customer/portal/articles/1901266-sync-free-vs-sync-pro

     

    "PRO version enables you to link all of your devices under a common identity. This give you access to ALL added folders on ALL of your linked devices automatically. Learn more"

     

    Since I don't know of a way to not have the Pro trial I can't answer this myself. Is the common identity(aka My Devices) only for Pro? I assume this is just poorly worded as it seems like the trial version would fall apart when transitioning to the free version if it does remove the identity.

  7. Mods - please move this to Feature Requests. Thanks

     

    It's been similarly mentioned but when selecting a device to push a backup to I would like to be prompted to enter a name for both the Backup name and the folder that will be created. This especially applies for sending the camera backup from a phone to a pc. Having the backup and folder name called DCIM isn't very helpful and what would happen if I had two android devices? How would it name them?

  8. I've never had issues with Firefox recognizing the protocol (windows).

    You can definitely manually add a link if you don't want to use the URL.

    I also wouldn't call the version hidden but that's preference. It's one click either way. I never used 1.3 but from what I've gathered there are many visual cues for identifying 1.3 or 1.4 :)

  9. I see so many threads stating how horrible the new interface is and I just wanted to voice one in the positive. I like it. Clean, simple, and works.

    Maybe I am in the (lucky) minority but I installed it on various machines, setup my 1.5 tb of shares, and then left it alone.

    So I can't say that I stare at and think about the interface all day long :)

    Very happy with btsync.

    Now just need it on my ddwrt router...