• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by fdbryant3

  1. Add a test file to the folder in question and see what happens when you do things with it.
  2. Well ideally you would have set one of the other computers as owner before the computer was formatted. Since that wasn't the case my guess would be to delete the share on all computers and then reshare the folder. Assuming you want to use B and C to restore A I would set B up as the Owner along with A and change permissions later.
  3. As a technical point there is no reason that you can't use BTSync in the same manner as you are using Dropbox. Granted Dropbox et al are an easier solution (especially if your on PC with restricted access) but it is doable with BTSync probably moreso with 2.0.
  4. I'm going to say because most people know what Dropbox is and virtually no one has heard of ViceVersa Pro but hey you may have won them a sale or two.
  5. Use the read-only flag if you don't want the files removed from the location on the Linux box. I use Dropit so I am most familiar with it. How are you setting up your action rules? Because if you set your rule like this Watch: D:\AppCache\Sync\Complete Rule: *.mp3/.bts (not knowing the file types I'm just using it as an example) Action: Move Destination: D:\Complete\%subdir% In my testing that should result in the following: D:\AppCache\Sync\Complete\Folder1 with 0 files D:\Complete\Folder1 with all files and subfolders Note that I am moving the files but not the folders themselves with this rule. The %subdir% tells Dropit to recreate the subdirectory structure. I am also assuming that you don't have any other rules doing cleanup tasks that might be getting in way. If so you might want to adjust them so they operate only when the folder/file Date Modified time is older than X minutes and thus giving things time to settle down. Anyway hope that helps. If not I have more complicated ideas on how to make it work.
  6. For what it is worth there are a number of bittorrent clients available that completely free (both of cost and ads). A little Googling will help you out.
  7. You would have to connect the hard drive to another computer on the LAN but yes you could do the sync that way. Alternatively you might want to look into a sync tool like SyncToy which can actually sync files across hard drives on the same PC.
  8. Alternatively, if you are happy with 1.4 - stick with 1.4
  9. First I am reiterating the argument others are making as to why they do not think that Sync does not deserve subscription pricing second. No one says that Sync has no infrastructure however that infrastructure is minimal compared to Dropbox and the heavy part of the infrastructure requirements (things like hard drives, computers, and bandwidth) are actually placed the use. Third the tracker, relay servers, and even DHT are more for making things easier for the user - Sync though can function without them, although you will have to do more of you own configuration Really, you can't see that in one version you have unlimited folder for without having to pay a dime is different and more functional than a version that has a folder 10 limit? I get loving Sync. I get we may disagree on how important this difference is. I even get that it doesn't affect you, but that doesn't mean it isn't affecting somebody. How about a little intellectual honesty here though. More importantly you are ignoring the larger issue which is one of trust. They said none of the features of 1.4 would be put behind a pay wall. Regardless of how important you think unlimited folders is, they have gone back on their word, and they did it to make money. I don't know about you but in my world when someone doesn't do what they say they will, that erodes my trust in them. When it is a company to whom I am entrusting my data going back on their word because they think it will yield more money - well we may disagree, but I am seriously going reconsider whether I want to do business with that company because who knows what other promises they think are worth breaking. If a suitable alternative is available - it is certainly grounds for switching.
  10. Well if you want to know why people are moving to other platforms you have to look at the reasons: 1) Subscription plan - most people don't object to paying for Sync but they do object to paying for a subscription for a couple reasons. First off because Sync is simply a program that provides functionality and does not have the infrastructure that needs to supported like Dropbox many people feel that a reoccurring charge is unjustified. There is also a independence factor. Many people like Sync because unlike say Dropbox if Bitorrent being a company then the program keeps working. Now that it is tied to a subscription who knows what happens if Bitorrent disappears. 2) The 10 folder limit - for most people the 10 folder limit isn't the problem in and of itself. The problem is that when 2.0 was announced they said none of the functionality in 1.4 would become a paid feature. Well 1.4 has unlimited folders. So now they have violated the trust they built up. This a big deal for a product that needs to be trusted to move personal data securely around the Internet. They already have an issue by not being open source. This just makes it worse because if you can't trust what the developers say, then who knows what they are doing with your data. Which brings us the question of why switch? Because that is how the system works. If you are not happy with a product, then you move on to something else. It is the only thing we as consumers can do to get what we want. It is why competition is a good thing. In this case of Bitorrent does not meet their subscription goals or sees people moving to other platforms like SyncThing then maybe they will change to something more palatable.
  11. Well, one would hope - that if that day does come that they would do the right thing and flip the bit in a final update so it can continue operating without the subscription. Of course there is no guarantee of that.
  12. It currently isn't that hard to find. The link is in the first pinned post on a link which leads to http://syncapp.bittorrent.com/1.4.111/. I do advise grabbing and archiving for your own purposes.
  13. Well we won't know for another 27 days or so when the trial periods start expiring. Beyond that I would bet that majority of people are single licenses running looking to run their own sync solution, which can make the 10 folder a limit regardless..
  14. Being open source isn't the issue, the question is does it work well enough to be a replacement.
  15. Well it is already known I am not happy with 2.0 upgrade because of the 10 folder limit (and to a lesser degree the subscription model). The only redeeming thing about it was - well at least I can stick with 1.4 and it will continue to work just as it has been (you one of those selling points used early on to convince people to give Sync a chance). Except - I just realized that my Android was automatically upgraded to 2.0. I understand this has to do with the way that Play store works but now I don't know how it is going to work with my setup. So, I took a deep breath and launched it. Well first thing I had to do is create an identity - fine, although I am wondering how this works to protect my annonyminity and allows me to remain independent of 3rd part middlemen (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it does since I know it can be done). At first I was relieved to see my current setup is still there with my folders being labelled 1.4. Okay, so what happens if I need a new folder. So I started creating a few new test folders and everything seems to work. Alright I can work with this. Except I just realized - I started the trial period, which means for the next 30 days I have unlimited folders. So I am screwed 2 ways : 1) I am limited to 10 folders if I am including my Android devices 2) I am losing out on the 30 day trial period because I was automatically upgraded whether I wanted it or not I am guessing that I am not the only one who is going to be affected this way. The sad thing is this all stems from the stupid 10 folder limit (which even Dropbox finally got away from). Really, all I want is what I can do with 1.4. I can see how the new features in 2.0 are desireable and worth paying for but not at the expense of limiting previous fuctionality. Sync was built on the idea of being the anti-Dropbox, allowing you to sync your data privately without a 3rd party storing your data. With 2.0 though, now I can't sync my data in that manner unless they lift the 10 folder limit. As a final thought for those you looking at my post and thinking well he isn't going to pay, so why should they listen to me and others. Well my answer is Google FDBryant3 and Sync........you wil find that I spend a lot of time evangelizing Sync and promoting at every opportunity I get (heck, I have been defending them on other issues even as I am trying to get them to address the ones that affect me) . I have no doubt that this translates into more people looking at it (because like or not when people are looking to sync their data the first thought is Dropbox, followed closely by Google and Microsoft.........Sync isn't even thought unless someone tells them about it), which means more users, which means more people paying for it. If Sync is no longer of benefit to me, or worse I find something else to replace it with - that means me (and others) are going to stop promoting it. In the meantime - if someone could hook me up with the free 1.4 apk, I would appreciate it.
  16. You know what, I am going to concede an error saying they are the same product. They are different products designed for solving the problem - synchronizing data on multiple devices across a LAN or Internet. So while they are 2 different products they acheive the same goal. If you disagree with this - they why is everyone comparing it to Dropbox. If Dropbox isn't their competitor than who is? Everyone keeps pointing out that Dropbox has a higher overhead that drives their subscription cost. This is true to a the tune $120/yr. Sync is only $40/yr. So if Dropbox and Sync solve the same problem for me in relative equal fashion - why should I pay more for Dropbox just because they have a datacenter? You can whine and complain about the subscription price all you want - but what is the alternative? Currently, to my knowelege the closest thing to Sync is Syncthing but it isn't ready for prime time. So again if you need your data sync'd across the Internet, and the free tier doesn't cut it - what do you do, pay more to Dropbox, et al, cause they have servers, or pay less to Sync?
  17. Get a friend or family member to let you hook up a computer (or NAS, or Raspberry PI, or even just trade space) to there network with BTSync set up - wahlah, if your house burns down, your data is safe. Don't have any friends/family willing to help you out - well you a lease a Vitrual Private Server running Linux or Windows for a lot less than Dropbox. Whether you want BTSync to be Dropbox or not the fact is they are the same product. They are both for sync'ing data among multiple devices across your network or the Internet. They are different in how they accomplish this but they are the same thing. People get hung up on the whole infrastructure arguement because it is a tangible thing to latch on to as something to pay for but in the end it is a false difference. While development, features, and support are more intangible things they are still ongoing very real costs. You pay (if needed) to sync your data. While it would be nice if they had other options besides the sub model being against it because don't have a hosted infrastructure is disingenious. The hosting isn't what you pay for, it is means to an end.
  18. And that is what your subscription is paying for. The whole hosted/cloud based thing is just a red herring for those to providers to make the easier sell to justify being a subscription. Here is the thing though - nobody goes to Dropbox because they want cloud-based storage (okay, maybe some do but honestly if that is your only reason then there are cheaper solutions). The reason you go to Dropbox is because you want to be able to sync and share your files across the Internet. The cloud storage angle is just a benefit of the method they have chose to provide that service. That is what you paying for - software that syncs your data across the Internet. Paying for a subscription to Sync is the same thing. You are paying to sync your files (in excess of the free tier) without a 3rd party middleman. While they are not only game in town that does this, all the others (that I know of) do the same thing. So you are paying for a subscription somewhere or you are not going to sync your data. Finally, the main thrust of your objection seems to be that you are paying something for nothing whereas a hosted service has a "tangible" cost associated to it. Except that isn't true. Your subscription is paying features, past development, support, and perhaps most importantly future development. Yes, I get that those are more intangible ideas but they have very real costs. Anyway, asking for a lifetime option is fine and probably a good idea for them to do. However tying it to the mindset that only something with a physical ongoing cost is worth a subscription is disingenious. You are not paying for the hardware associated with a product, you are paying for the product.
  19. Your are right they have less overhead cost. That doesn't mean they have no cost. Lets look at the cost comparison though. As far as I can make out looking at the website for Dropbox you get 2GB of storage (which means you can't sync any more than 2gb of data via Dropbx) for free and then you pay $9.99/mo ($120/yr) for 1TB of storage that you can sync across devices. With Sync the actual amount that you can sync doesn't matter - I can sync 1TB for free if I want. Now granted that is presuming I keep my files in one of 10 sync'd folders. If that doesn't work for me then I can pay $40/yr for unlimited sync'd folders. So here is the scenario - I want 15 folders sync'd across my devices amounting to 100gb of data. I can pay $120/yr to Dropbox or I can pay $40/yr for Sync. It really doesn't matter how they are sync'ing data, only that it is sync'd. If Sync can meet my needs equally to Dropbox, there is no reason to pay Dropbox just because they have servers to support. Yeah, Sync has the lower overhead, but it is also cheaper. As for alternatives - well make the same cost comparisons. If they are cheaper and do what you need then yeah, go with the alternative if you can find one. That is the entire point and beauty of having a competitive marketplace. Now as to refusing to pay for a sub because of broken promises, that is a fair argument and judgement call to make. That goes to their integrity and whether you still want to do business with them which a different consideration than comparing the products they are offering.
  20. Those are fair reasons for not paying the subscription. I am mostly address the "its my hardware, my electricity, my bandwidth" arguement. The fact of the matter is that it is their software that you are licensing. Currently there is no free alternatives after a certain point. Once you reach that point there is only two real options (for most people) - pay somebody for their software, or don't sync your data. Once you reach that point - the whole "my" argument is irrelevant (or at least should be). The only thing that is relevant is who can offer you the best product at the lowest price. Another red herring that goes along with the "my" arguement is that you are paying something for nothing. Sorry folks that is not true. You are paying for additional features, past development, support, and future development. They may not have the physical infrastructure cost that Dropbox also has to support, but they are a cost that has to be paid by someone. Anyway - I agree, I am not a big fan of the subscription model. I would prefer a one time payment with the expectation I'll have to pay for future upgrades should I desire them. I don't think the lifetime thing really is viable if you want future updates, but there is something to be said to making it an option. At the end of the day though - I am good with the sub model (but then again, I'll probably remain free regardless). It has advantage and disadvantages just like any other model. Time will tell if this will work in the long run.
  21. Question - just for a moment, lets pretend that Sync operating as it does and Dropbox operating as it does were free across the board. Which would you choose and why?
  22. Actually I am interested in how identies work in general and allow you to remain anonymous and independent of Bitorrent, Inc. Since this is a key selling point of Sync.
  23. Using the software they developed and are licensing to you to sync your data. Without it the rest is irrelevant.