New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xtraeme

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

346 profile views
  • Moe

  1. About 2 years ago I setup a sync point between a Surface and my Desktop machine. Both machines had ownership privileges. The Desktop box still has ownership, but this morning the Surface displayed the message "an owner removed your permission to access $name_of_share$". Looking through the sync.log I see: { "id": "<async message id>", "response": { "folders": [ { "access": 4, "archive": "C:\\_Share\\.sync\\Archive", "archive_files": 0, "archive_size": 0, "available_space": "25.7 GB", "date_added": 1572453485, "down
  2. I have about 30 or so different shares with about 1/3rd of the shared folders being related to my personal network of machines, another 1/3rd related to an open source project, and the final 1/3rd related to a collaboration with a few professional colleagues. It would be really nice if I could associate the 1st group of shares together as: 1. Personal / Home The second as: 2. Open Source Project and the final as: 3. Collaboration This would declutter the interface by hiding the groups I am not interested in. Are there any plans for this sort of thing?
  3. Thanks Marko. You might want to flag management as well.
  4. I recently did a contract with a Fortune 500 client that requires SAS 70 Type II, SSAE 16, ISAE 3402, and/or SOC2/3 certifications amongst other guarantees like 99.9% SLAs and so on and so forth when working with external vendors. Moving data securely is always a sensitive issue. The company required AES256 at rest and during data transmission. BT Sync (now Resilio) only currently supports AES-128, which is problem number one, but I still floated BT Sync for transmitting large assets that weren't mission critical. During a security review legal called attention to a clause in Resilio's Terms o
  5. I have a VVEngine schedule that does syncs every hour on the hour. If there is no conflict, VV silently copies the files over to the other machines easy peasey. When a merge conflict crops up VVEngine sends out an alert saying that a manual merge needs to happen. There is no reason for BT Sync to auto-attempt a merge. That would be awful. All it needs to do is keep a shallow history to show that the two files are no longer operating from the same base. Computer 1 / Computer 2: Hash 0: File A (rev. 0) Computer 1: Hash 1: File A + mid file edit (rev. 1) Computer 2: Hash 2: File A + data a
  6. I am paying customer of both ViceVersa and BitTorrent Sync. I use rsync, robocopy, and numerous diff tools with various levels of automation on a daily basis. Frankly, considering BitTorrent Sync has no way to do conflict resolution between files. It is basically just a toy for people who need mirroring. ViceVersa and VVEngine solves this much more gracefully. For example, here is a simple test case. 1. Install Gomita's Scrapbook in Firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/scrapbook/) 2. Save a web-link at any site using Scrapbook (instructions) and synchronize it between two
  7. Why is everyone comparing BT Sync with DropBox when they should be comparing it with ViceVersa Pro? Also notice that ViceVersa is a one time cost outside of updates.
  8. A week or so ago I upgraded to Pro to experiment with the new 2.0 features. I have two machines that I am syncing. One is a desktop with literally millions of files from a rather large development project extending Chromium. The other machine is a Surface and only imports subsections of the project over two directories. So imagine my surprise when I upgraded from 1.4.111 on the Surface and all 17 shares were imported on to the Surface from my main desktop after I linked the two devices. The Surface was setup to fully sync; so it started to download the whole project. The BT Sync client imm
  9. I'd just like to pop in and reiterate Bob's point. I was a huge fan of BT Sync originally because it was easy to manage and sync numerous folders with family members machines, but now that I'd have to buy a perpetual license for each family member. The entire thing falls apart. I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount upfront to purchase a license for a specific version of the software to be reused in several locations. However, as it stands if I can only share 10 folders with people who don't have a license. Then BT Sync 2.0 is useless to me. So for now I'll continue to use the 1.4 version of t
  10. First, I want to say BitTorrent Sync is a brilliant concept. A couple of years ago I was considering working on a distributed versioning filesystem using bep_0003 as the basis for how files were synchronized. So it's nice to see Bram is thinking along similar lines. Anyhow, getting to the feature request, since files and directories are sorted using the native operating system's lister. I think BT Sync would be a lot easier and more useful to the end user if the client was more consistent in how it presents and sorts files on mobile devices. Why is this important? It is ridiculously tedi