Cakey

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cakey

  • Rank
    New User
  1. Awesome. Thanks for listening. Like many others (hopefully) I've put my money where my mouth is and purchased a pro license. Sync is a great product.
  2. Erik, Thank you for responding to the many calls for a non-subscription based model, its disappointing obviously that you see this in different terms to the many users, myself included, asking for a non subscription model. BTSync has made a wonderful product in 1.4 and perhaps a slight misstep in the move to 2.0, personally I prefer the more simplistic key model in 1.4 but thats just me, also I would really love the individual folder sync in 2.0 but this is more a subjective discussion than an objective one and we all have slightly differing views. As a programmer myself I'm happy to pay BTSync as it has helped me greatly and like many people here we'd like to give some payback for what BTSync has given us, after all you folks continue to work hard on this. An endless tab is not what most of us see as the solution. However, you are the guy with decision and only you know how well the new licensing model is working and time will tell if corporates are happy to shell out for your SAAS model as you have must realised it really doesn't appeal to those that have worked with you thus far. If it doesn't work you probably wont share that with us (understandably), it does seem that you are wasting an opportunity and goodwill with your licensing concept but its your choice. Personally I will stay with 1.4, it works well enough for the moment and who knows what the future will bring. Sad & Disappointed Kate
  3. Personally I'd be happy to pay $100 for a one off. I'm a programmer myself (Android) and understand the importance for the BTSync guys to get revenue and to get paid for what they've done, its just $40/year/ever feels like being gouged, especially when we have to provide our own storage. What I really would like to see is a middle tier, pay once, 20 folder limit with on-demand sync. Would buy that instantly. Kate
  4. Whilst I'm more than happy to pay once for BTSync then there is a real issue on a system where I provide all the infrastructure behind the system and have to pay a yearly amount to make it work in a decent way. Like I said, happy to pay a one off and then perhaps if at some point in the future there is some amazing new feature then an upgrade fee but the current model doesn't seem good for me as a consumer, great for you BTSync as a revenue stream though, leaves me feeling a little gouged, although granted this isn't a huge amount we're talking. (This will end up being seen as an FOSS opportunity and someone will come along with an open source solution where the security can be inspected but we're here now and so...) What I'd really love to see is a middle tier pay once option for two features: 15-20 Folders Sync On Demand I'd be happy to pay for that on a once off right now. What do you all think? Kate
  5. Not that it helps but I have exactly the same issue. Macbook, Intel Linux machine at home (same LAN) and remote ARM based Raspberry Pi, all running 1.4.83. The Pi acts as an offsite read-only backup for the local Linux server and has 8 read-only shares. The MacBook and Linux machine are 100% synced on all shares. However on the remote RaspPi machine its a very different story SourceCode Share - 2 files failed to sync , 7.9KB & 669 Bytes Eclipse Android Workspace share - 274 files totalling 2.69MB Doc Share - 3 files in 31Kb What I notice is that all the shares with bigger files seem to sync OK, its just the small ones that fail, my pictures and music shares are 100% synced on the remote device, all larger files, I don't know if this is just a coincidence but I do seem to remember that btsync handles small file sync differently in that it doesnt chunk them but sends in one piece. Perhaps a clue to the issue... Kate