• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by mexter

  1. That isn't how it works, though. Sync doesn't send your data through Bittorrent Inc servers. All they do is relay where your end devices are, and in the case of 2.0 handle identities.You could potentially even run your own tracker and cut out BT entirely (I know of at least one project, but haven't tried it) They don't host your data. Your data never goes through their servers. I haven't used Lastpass, but I'm guessing it stores a copy of your various site passwords and periodically checks for changes on any of your connected end devices. This is also a fairly small amount of data, but it's more than BT would have. On top of that, they have to keep those passwords VERY secure, and that adds a whole different dimension. If they slip up on their security, it's a huge problem. If customer passwords are actually stolen and used, I doubt they (Lastpass) would survive. I believe they had one issue in 2011, but to the best of my knowledge it didn't end up being that big of a deal long term. Either way, one shouldn't confused these two things. One is user hosted file synchronization, the other is your personal keys to the kingdom.
  2. I wouldn't. At least we know where 1.4.111 stands. It'd be easy enough for them to pull the rug from under us again with 2.x. Take the bugs and product you know rather than mourn the ones you lost or may lose in the future.
  3. That isn't a higher version for Android. 65 < 111. There is no 1.4.111 for Android, and if you find one I wouldn't install it. Do be warned that Google Play will try and upgrade to 2.x shortly after you install, so if you have updates set to auto in GP you should go in and change it for BTsync as soon as you install it. (There are tools that can unregister it from GP, but I'm not sure they would work unless you're rooted.) Agreed about the lack of trust. I'm almost done with my initial trial phase with SyncThing. I'll be expanding to some of the larger folder soon and will hopefully have BTsync phased out in the near future.
  4. What I do is ignore the built in camera backup. So create a shared folder wherever you want on the Linux device (particularly required if you were to make it read/write on both ends), then share that with the phone and point to the photo location on the phone. Kind of stupid to have to do it that way, but it's easier than figuring out what Sync thinks I'm supposed to do. I think this will end up being writable on both ends, which isn't what you want, but so long as you're the only person dealing with both ends it shouldn't matter. Alternately, you could also ignore the photo backup feature on the phone, but create the share from it, which *should* allow you to set the Linux end to be read only (by virtue of sharing a read-only key). I don't know if version 2 has changed how this works, since I don't use it.
  5. Why not just use 1.4? Here's the link to the last version:
  6. This is disingenuous at best. Companies improved their software LONG before subscriptions models were a thing. I see what you have written as basically saying, "we don't think we can make a compelling enough version 3 for people to purchase it after version 2." So we've seen two communications from Sync today, one here and one in email. The email, in particular, was insulting because it proves that you were aware that the "trial" could not be opted out of and that this was your intent. For those of us who upgraded to version 2, the end of the trial means that we must delete (from Sync) any folders we don't want to be part of the 10, since it doesn't give us the option to rearrange or switch folders off. It's just the first 10 that we added since using the earliest version of Sync, in order of when they were added. So even if I wanted to use the free version, you've gone out of your way to make it a pain in the ass. How you've handled the trial is actually worse than the 10 folder issue, so far as I'm concerned. I'm going to leave the 10 folder limit / "we won't remove features" alone right now, since you're apparently not going to address it. Feel free to prove me wrong. You've accomplished one thing with your new model. You've converted many of us who were die-hard advocates of Sync into people who will go out of our way to point people in other directions. Congratulations.
  7. This one, unless things have changed. (They haven't)
  8. I would think that this would depend on how they are blocking it. Blocking the domain, for example, wouldn't stop you from running it. They could be blocking the standard port for btsync. It could also just be a local machine policy. Or a bunch of other things. What happens if you use predefined hosts and put your home IP address (or IP for another device) and not use the bittorrent tracker server? And have you actually spoken to your IT department? If you have a legitimate work reason to use it, they might be able to make an exception or even review their policy.
  9. Actually, that's a pretty good question. Where has it said that Sync can't be used for business? All I've found is "Licensed for Business Use" under the non free category of a features list. But a list of features isn't legally binding. They haven't updated the site TOS since mid-2013. The EULA is a bit over a month old, and has this: "Single User license. Subject to your compliance with these terms and conditions, BitTorrent, Inc. grants you a personal, freely revocable, limited, royalty-free, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, non-assignable license to use the Software, solely for your personal, non-commercial purposes, and you may not use the Software for internal use as an end user if you are a business except if you have a valid license for BitTorrent Sync Pro. BitTorrent, Inc. reserves all rights in the Software not expressly granted to you here." I am not a legal expert in any way. My reading is that you just need "a valid license for BitTorrent Sync Pro." This does not say that you need one for every single user. Presumably all equipment would belong to your business, so you're not sub-licensing anything by installing Pro everywhere. If your scenario requires different BTsync identities then it's a bit of a grey area. The question is whether or not you can use the Free version for sharing between users so long as you at least have one license. The EULA is shockingly brief on this subject and doesn't appear to explicitly rule it out. But again, I'm no legal expert. If your scenario can get by on a single BTsync Identity and just shares information around without worry about who accesses it, I would say you're in the clear with a single license. Agreed about the company crippling the software, but I'm trying VERY hard to stick to the business at hand, since I've been outspoken enough on other threads. Here's the EULA: Perhaps somebody here will have a more nuanced opinion. (Particularly since BT seems intent on not communicating these days)
  10. You couldn't have worded that just a little better? I'm not entirely sure how one *would* use a free version of a product illegally. Most of us want to purchase it for a fair price that doesn't include a subscription. Or so we proclaim. If Bittorrent Inc. heeds our words, perhaps one day we'll have the opportunity to put our money where our mouth is. As per your question, it depends on how you use the product. If you share indiscriminately, then you could just use the same identity on all. If not, I'm guessing you could have a master paid account and then install free accounts with separate identities on other machines that don't require 10 shares?
  11. Depends on what is meant by the question. My Internet and hardware isn't dedicated to BTsync and I would almost certainly have it regardless. That said, I might be on a lower speed tier because my use of bandwidth has increased considerably. I've sunk a fair amount of time in making things work just so. So I'm not really sure how to quantify it. I would definitely consider it (or whatever replaces it) in any future equations.
  12. So now that I know how to deactivate the trial (in Windows, delete license.bin in appdata\bittorrent sync\license\#####) I've had a chance to actually evaluate this new Product of Syncing (PoS). So if you "upgraded" from 1.4 to the new PoS and had, say 30 folders, it selects the first 10 folders in the order of Date Added. If you want one of the other 20 folders, you have to disconnect one of the 10 lucky ones and then it will add the next folder based on the order in which it was added. At this point I haven't tried making any new sync folders in the new PoS style, because at this point I really don't think I care. At this point, grading means redoing pretty much everything and if I'm going to do that, it won't be with this.
  13. THANK YOU! It turns out that the free version is actually a little worse than I expected. I had hoped you could at least turn folders off and on without removing them entirely. Doesn't appear to be the case.
  14. And if that's what they want, all the power to them. But unless they reverse their stance on the free version, I'll be actively discouraging people from using their product. They aren't trustworthy and are willing to artificially limit their software in order to "encourage" their users to pay up, and that's what I will tell anybody who asks me. Maybe we're the minority. But they had a huge amount of goodwill with us until this fiasco started. They quite expertly reversed that and then some in one fell swoop. They could have been reasonable and had our support, which would likely have led to a lot more users in the long run.
  15. Good point. I'm on Android and have a bit more flexibility in this particular arena. i hadn't given iOS much thought. That would seriously irritate me.
  16. It's not "just out of design" though. It's now a product you want us to pay for. And you're not giving us a reasonable way to evaluate it. If you expect money out of us, don't use this excuse. Perhaps I misunderstand your usage of the word "conspiracy."
  17. Actually, this is the one silver lining in all of this. 1.3/1.4 remains available (if a bit hard to find) and can continue function as it did previously.
  18. Two points. I would be happy to pay for this product. They are not offering something that warrants a subscription, and are charging an obscene amount for something that requires very little server time or bandwidth on their part. This isn't a VPN, it's not a media streaming service. Those things, particularly the latter, have very high costs involved. Bittorrent, Inc needs to pay programmers, maybe office space and run some servers to host their software. This is a decentralized solution where the customer pays virtually all of the costs. The are offering a program, NOT a service. I don't want a service. And deceiving your userbase is absolutely a serious thing. If they want my business, the can rescind the 10 folder limit (which I would construe as an apology), and offer a product that does not require subscribing for a price that is reasonable.
  19. There's (at least) two schools of thought. One says that everything should be open and transparent so that you know that there aren't bugs or malicious bits of code. The other that by keeping it closed your are keeping it secure (eg. the "bad guys" can't either find a non-discovered bug or security hole or introduce one by contributing code.). And money. Keeping it closed is probably easier to monetize.
  20. Yes. As time goes by and the answer gets more complicated. If they back off of the 10 folder limit I'm willing to just forget about this mess. But I'm trying other products and sooner or later there will be a point of no return.
  21. Does a 1.4 folder count toward the 10 folder limit?
  22. I never said it was "menial". If it were, I wouldn't be here feeling disillusioned. To answer your question, I started using it because its core functionality is exactly what I had been searching for for a long time. It's unbelievably great software (with a rather lackluster interface). It's not Dropbox, Carbonite, Drive, etc., and I don't want it to be. All I want is end to end file synchronization between my devices. That doesn't warrant a subscription. The quality of the software totally warrants buying. "We’re continuing to invest more and more into Sync and there’s a lot of great features coming in Sync 2.0. We’re improving the free edition over what’s available in version 1.4 and we’re introducing new functionality that will be a part of a new Pro edition." They have absolutely improved some things, including the interface. They also took away the core functionality by reducing the number of shared folders to 10 (I am aware that subfolders are not counted in this). Thank you! This is really the issue. Previously the software fit an existing need, but the new version reverse this, forcing us to either pay or restructure in order to meet the needs of the program. EDIT: This forum is lumping all of my separate replies into one. I don't recall it doing that yesterday.
  23. Alternative solution to what, exactly? I don't think we share the same definition of what BTsync does. Here, I'll go first. BTsync provides real time synchronization of a shared location stored on two or more end user devices. This can be facilitated either by using a BT hosted tracker or by the user configuring one themselves. If the former then BT is doing two things; hosting the tracker and maintaining / updating the software. Otherwise, it's just updating the software. Do we disagree on this?
  24. If it's just business, then they took a very bad stumble out of the gate by lying to the original customers. Actually, what you are describing won't apply to the $59 plan. You'd need at least the $99 to go beyond user folders. You could place the computer backups within those folders, of course, but I personally think that's being dishonest. And what do mean that BTsync isn't intended to give you remote access to your files? That's its core function. You install it on one machine, you install it on another, and whichever folders you specify are synced. The new version allows for selective sync, but I haven't looked into that.
  25. It's not unlimited in the sense of something like Drive or Dropbox. It's unlimited in that you own and control all of the endpoints. It's unlimited in the sense that if you need another TB of data you go and buy an additional hard drive and install it yourself. And you pay for your own power and labor. What offer is a program that acts as an intermediary (assuming the default setup is used). So at best they're maintaining a tracker. The main thing that they do is update the BTsync software. That's not subscription-worthy. It's totally worth buying.