GreatMarko

Latest Desktop Build 1.4.72

Recommended Posts

That's sadly one of the risks/drawbacks of using any "beta" software within "mission critical" / "production" environments.

 

Of course :) But it's not beta ))) But OK, just hope for fast updates.

P.s. Actually I like new UI, it's more flexible than the old one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course :) But it's not beta ))) But OK, just hope for fast updates.

 

Sync is still in beta.

 

The question I have is the precise instructions to get back to 1.3.109.

In order to "downgrade" from 1.4 to 1.3.109 you'd need to completely uninstall 1.4 (including manually removing any left over settings/databases in %appdata%/BitTorrent Sync), reinstall 1.3.109, and then add all your folders back with their original keys (secrets)

 

This should have never been released the way it was, without any warning or explanation or documentation.

To be fair, 1.4.72 hasn't been pushed out to any users via "auto-update". Therefore, desktop users have had to manually, and consciously download and install it - it is not installed "without warning", or without explanation, or without documentation

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course :) But it's not beta ))) But OK, just hope for fast updates.

P.s. Actually I like new UI, it's more flexible than the old one :)

First of all, on beta, you don't do ANY development. Beta, to the best of my understanding is purely a bug-fix release. All the development if frozen in beta.

So, to call this "beta" is misleading the potential users. It is not even a proper alpha, even though in alpha some minor development thins are acceptable.

The problem is that not many people will be willing to download and try the alpha releases. But nearly everyone would be willing to download beta in hope that it is something close to the final release.

But BTSync is not even close to the final release. It is FULL of most fundamental bugs, and instead of fixing those bugs and freezing the development they introduce tons of more bugs, some of which are not resolvable the way it looks right now, such as this pathetic and most primitive UI.

There is one point of requiring IE as a must. There was a court case in EU about Microsoft being shipped with IE as a default. MS lost that case.

And what we see with BTSync is the same exact thing. They REQUIRE you to use the software some of you would not even think of running, such as IE.

You can not do that. You can not require the users to run some 3rd party code to run your app.

I do not want to run IE under ANY circumstances, and much less I want it to be run without my explicit permission to do so, or even some informative warning.

Is it documented somewhere why do they need IE and what exactly do they do via it and what it is used for?

Are there any security/privacy issues with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GreatMarko:

But that doesn't apply to the Android Users which got the 1.4.36 by Auto-Update!

 

Yep - fair point indeed, Leo! ...although stanah was specifically referring to the desktop applications (1.3.109 and 1.4.72)

First of all, on beta, you don't do ANY development. Beta, to the best of my understanding is purely a bug-fix release. All the development if frozen in beta.

So, to call this "beta" is misleading the potential users. It is not even a proper alpha, even though in alpha some minor development thins are acceptable.

 

Just for clarity; Sync 1.3.109 was a public "beta" also. Technically, no new features have been added to Sync 1.4.72 "beta" - new features were however added to Sync 1.4 "alpha" (i.e. builds of 1.4.x prior to .72).

But without quibbling/splitting hairs over what is/isn't perceived as alpha/beta software, the fact remains that there has to date never been a "stable" release of Sync. There have only been private "alphas" and public "betas". Sync 1.7.72 is classed as a public "beta".

 

There was a court case in EU about Microsoft being shipped with IE as a default. MS lost that case.

And what we see with BTSync is the same exact thing. They REQUIRE you to use the software some of you would not even think of running, such as IE.

You can not do that. You can not require the users to run some 3rd party code to run your app.

Stanah, I appreciate your frustration, but I'm afraid your association that changing from a native UI to a web UI is equivalent to Windows shipping with IE by default is pretty tenuous at best!

You could argue in that case that you're being "forced" to use an operating system in order to use BitTorrent Sync, and that Sync should run without any "3rd party" operating system at all! :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B.Jay, in relation to the API, you can still use the API without the UI. Sync 1.4 will still install on Windows devices where IE<9, and the binary itself will still function - it's just that the web UI doesn't work. The API itself (which doesn't use the UI) will therefore still work with Sync 1.4 on Windows devices where IE<9

In relation to the relay-tracker; as far as I am aware, older versions of Sync aren't "blocked" (i.e. Sync 0.x, 1.x and 2.x clients can still access these)

...and believe me, management are fully aware that not everyone likes/approves of/appreciates the decision the drop the native UI in favor of the web UI!

 

Alright, I promise to get on your nerves just this last time...

 

Re: "But you can still use it but not the UI (IE <9.0)"...

GreatMarko, you still fail to understand my point here. I know that BTSync would still work but not the UI, but: This would still put the BTSync icon into the notification area which, running with a homebrewn UI, wouldn't be required at all - I could implement my own "spinning logo thingy". A plain binary without _ANY_ Windows Shell integration or HTTP served parts would be plain awesome, even if you don't see my point here. Take the guy who coded up the BTSync GUI for Linux as an example (even under the danger to get you mad: he had to do it because your coding monkeys couldn't/wouldn't do it -> #LackingCodingSkills) ... did he need a notification icon prodvided by your binary or some dysfunctional "UI" window? I don't think so.

 

One more Re on "Management knows best":

And we're back to #LackingCodingSkills yet again. Your coding monkeys obviously never heard of embeddable browser engines (Gecko, WebKit - just to name two to try and give you the idea). Using Gecko or WebKit as the embedded render engine would resolve a whole lot of the troubles reported around here (UI bomb/misbehaves with customized IE Zone settings and so on) - though you would have a point in going "but that would increase the size of BTSync", but who cares in times like these where hard drives are measured in Terabytes.

 

And while we're at it ... "Unification across platforms" is a joke, right? If you would be serious about "uniform across platforms with easy portability" you would actually want to resort to Java (though everyone hates that beast with a vengeance as well). Seeing how BTSync turned from a manly C/C++ project into a "Metrocalypse-worthy HTML5/JS/CSS" catastrophe and seeing how "Bleep" is C# ... come in with "Uniformity" again?

 

Oh, and using "Trident" to render the UI ... well ... given that even manly Web Developers (earning their living by enduring the PITA that is "making it work with Internet Exploder and its lacking JavaScript and CSS support" - take my word that I know what I'm talking about as a good friend of mine is one of these poor tortured souls) scream like little girls when they get confronted with a "has to also work with IE" project of some client ... wise management decision. I take your suits never, ever, coded up something that had to work in IE (read: tons of ugly hacky code just to make it work in that POS of a browser/engine) as well as in true-to-the-W3C-standard Mozilla/Chrome browsers.

 

Anyway, I'll now shut up - seems you "big fellas" know better than me anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the precise instructions on how to recover 1.3.109 and have all my nodes showing the sync state they did before me trying to install 1.4.72.

As far as the difference between "beta", "alpha" and what constitutes development, are you an authorized spokesman for BT?

As far as I can see, switching to totally new UI constitutes a MAJOR development effort that has and will continue to have the most profound impact. And once people begin to comprehend what actually happened, how many of them will be crying to get back to 1.3.109?

In my opinion, the 1.4.72 release should be pulled immediately, just to prevent some damage that I am beginning to see with my main nodes. And in the public information exchange where you have no control over what they do, this is already a disaster the consequences of which I can not even comprehend at the moment.

In my opinion, if you consider such drastic changes, it is much wiser to add all the bug-fixes to the existing release with old style, and then create a document which describes all the consequences of switching in detail.

Then, you make sure your install does not simply override the configs of the incompatible previous release so you can recover. After all, it is user, who decides what he likes to stay with.

The absence of any kind of explanation and documentation covering the "new features" and the absence of the ability to restore the previous release in this situation is a shame, and not only this, but looks like a total failure of project management, to say the least.

The director of development, or architect or project manager in a professionally run company should have never allowed for such a disaster.

And I still do not see an answer to my main question:

How do I recover 1.3.109 so that all my users look in the same sync state they were?

Edited by stanha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there no versioned download links anymore?

If not, that's extremely annoying for packaging btsync, as there is no fixed url for a specific version anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, my friends :) As for me it seems that for Linux there is a problem only with x86 (32-bit) release. I mean slow syncing and so on. Why do I think so?

 

I have 6 PCs (yeah, it seems a bit sick  :P ) on x64 OSs (2x CentOS 6.5 x64 + 1x Windows 2K8R2 + 2x Windows 7 Ultimate + 1x Windows 8.1) and 1 PC with x32 OS (CentOS 6.5 x86)

 

Yesterday I installed BTSync 1.4.72 on all of this machines. x64 was OK and there were no need to do something after v1.3.106. But x86 version crashed every run after a couple of seconds. So I deceided to run x86 version from scratch.

Since major problems (extreme slow syncing, forewer pending and so on) I found only on x86 version, I decided to delete v1.4.72 and run 1.3.109 from scratch again. Now everything is OK there - fast indexing, syncing and so on.

 

Will test it some more time, but as for me, x64 for Linux is OK, x64 for Windows is OK if You don't mind about IE, x86 for Linux has to be fixed for sure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there no versioned download links anymore?

If not, that's extremely annoying for packaging btsync, as there is no fixed url for a specific version anymore.

 

I'm afraid I don't have an "official" answer to this for you.

 

However, my best guess would be that the developers have chosen to provide a single "latest" link in an effort to ensure users are always using the latest version of Sync available i.e the same download link will always retrieve the latest build, whichever that happens to be. By offering "versioned" downloads links to each and every build, users could be downloading obsolete builds of Sync without realizing.

 

...that would be my guess... the alternative however could just be that they've simply not yet got around to offering a "versioned" download link for 1.4.72 yet (which has only been available since Tuesday, and haven't yet been pushed to users via auto-update!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I recover 1.3.109 so that all my users look in the same sync state they were?

You will have to delete v.1.4.72 binary and .sync folder + .sync folders on all shares. Then run 1.3.109 with old sync.conf (since it's the same for v.1.4 - v.1.3). If You configured all shares in sync.conf file - everything sholud go fine. If You used WebUI - You'll have to add shares again, wait for indexing and do same things on your other nodes.

 

Seems like it's only one solution for downgrade now :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to delete v.1.4.72 binary and .sync folder + .sync folders on all shares. Then run 1.3.109 with old sync.conf (since it's the same for v.1.4 - v.1.3). If You configured all shares in sync.conf file - everything sholud go fine. If You used WebUI - You'll have to add shares again, wait for indexing and do same things on your other nodes.

Seems like it's only one solution for downgrade now :(

Are you sure about these instructions?

Let's see if I understand it correctly.

1) I need to physically delete the BTSync binary from Program Files dir (Win 7).

2) I have to wipe out everything from AppData\Roaming\BitTorrent Sync, including the databases

3) Remove all the .sync folders from all the shares. Do you know why, by any chance? Do .sync folders interfere with 1.3.109?

Right now I have 1.3.109 running except all the nodes show as empty while they are all synced. That is my main problem, at the moment at least.

I hope someone has an "authoritative" instructions on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I need to physically delete the BTSync binary from Program Files dir (Win 7).

No, you need to run the uninstaller

 

2) I have to wipe out everything from AppData\Roaming\BitTorrent Sync, including the databases

Yes

 

3) Remove all the .sync folders from all the shares. Do you know why, by any chance? Do .sync folders interfere with 1.3.109?

They shouldn't although depending upon your .syncignore rules in Sync 1.3, they may end up propagating to other devices. That's why it's advisable to remove all traces of 1.4 before re-installing 1.3.

 

Are you sure about these instructions?

 

I hope someone has an "authoritative" instructions on this.

I'm not sure how to make this simpler - perhaps this official article from the Sync Help Center will help: "If you want to downgrade - please uninstall Sync and remove all settings, then install 1.3 and configure all folders from scratch."

 

Have you followed these instructions? i.e. completely uninstalled Sync 1.4, removed all settings, installed a fresh copy of 1.3, and configured your folders from scratch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Add or remove programs" did it for me on Win7 to remove 1.4.72. I then just installed 1.3.109 and was happily on my way. I had to re-add all shares though, which was a bit of a hassle but worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just removed the BTSync via control panel (Win7).

Then moved all the files in AppData\Roaming\BitTorrent Sync to the backup folder.

Then removed all the .sync folders.

Then added 2 of my main shares and it looks like at least one of the nodes does show its sync state correctly (does not show the entire share to be uploaded to it), which seems like some progress.

Unfortunately, there are only 3 nodes on line at the moment and the other 2 still show as being utterly empty, which is false as they are fully synced. So, I guess we have to wait and see what happens when all the regular nodes come on line.

I'd just like to ask if anyone really knows the reason all the nodes showed as empty before while they were all synced? Is it some registry data? I still do not see the real reason for it. I could care less if .sync folder get propagated. I did add it to .SyncIgnore, but I guess they were all synced with other nodes already. So that does not help them, if this is the problem

But I do like to see the exact reason why those nodes used to show as empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one thing everyone needs to remember...this is FREE software! I'm sure the devs work on this project in their free time and if it's anything like my free time then they don't have much. Just don't be so hard on them, they didn't have to bring us sync in the first place! I appreciate the software as it has greatly simplified backups so thank you guys!

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will test it some more time, but as for me, x64 for Linux is OK, x64 for Windows is OK if You don't mind about IE, x86 for Linux has to be fixed for sure!

How is your CPU usage? For me, 1.3.109 stays around 11%, but 1.4 jumped it to 25-35%. I mean while the process is "idling," not while its syncing after the 10-minute period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still trying to recover 1.3.109 related stuff.

Some shares got really screwed up because of new .sync subfolder and so I had to copy things back to the main share's folder and I guess some things I copied changed the mtime on some files.

So, now I have one folder with weird behavior. Since some of my mod-times on some files were of now, then they restart syncing them and create the filename.Conflict files. If I try to touch those files, then depending on how I touch them (-m only) option, they either reupload the same file adding .Conflict to file name, or upload AND download them, again adding the .Conflict to file name. But this is a pretty big share and I'd like to get done with it, rather sooner than later.

So, what is the right way of making sure I don't have to upload the existing files and have all these files with .Conflict? I thought that If the file hash is the same, then file is not actually transferred, but only the file mtime is changed. Does it matter which way the time is off on the file - past or future?

What are the exact instructions to recover that share?

Update 1:

What is interesting about this is that if my target share (r/o) has files with newer date, then BTSync transfers them to the master (r/w) share as well. I did ask this question before:

Why in the world the r/o share transfers files to the r/w share under ANY circumstances? What is the difference between the r/w and r/o shares then if r/o share can update the r/w share?

Does anyone know this?

Edited by stanha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I am not sure that we all need to uninstall and go back to 1.3.109, BUT if uninstall does not remove everything to enable an older version to be reinstalled then surely something is broken?  Expecting the general public to have to delete a load of new .sync folders that they did not know had been generated is daft. 

I have been VERY happy to provide my feedback in this forum and also to 'the team' supporting users over the past few months, but for GMarko to come back to me (thanks by the way and sorry for the delay in replying) only to tell me that ALL these issues that are being mentioned in this thread WERE ALREADY KNOWN BY THE DEVELOPERS yet still they released the software to the unsuspecting public WITHOUT A PROPER 'revert to the old one' route is suicidal - stanha, I agree with you 100% - this release SHOULD be pulled IMMEDIATELY and the KNOWN bugs fixed.  Period.  I am pretty sure the world can carry on with 1.3.109 for a month or two, but they will find another solution if they start with 1.4.72

Having said that, it is still working - and still syncing my files - it is just the incorrect errors being reported and the useless GUI that worries me right now. 

I have unchecked the automatic updates in my one remaining 1.3.109 machine - so at least I can just about tell whet is going on on one PC!

and don't kid yourselves guys - just because it is 'free software' doesn't mean BTSync are not making money!!  If there is a 'management team' making decisions then where do you think THEY get their salaries from??  THEY will not be volunteering their services that's for sure!!

I for one would happily pay for this type of software - if it worked! 

OK, enough.  I am looking forward to a 'press release' about the latest upgrade - 1.5 perhaps?? :-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is FREE software! I'm sure the devs work on this project in their free time

 

That's naive.

 

This software is from BitTorrent Inc.

I'm sure the company is raking it in from e.g. "Plus" versions of uTorrent, and offers/ads via the installer from "free" version etc..

So developers are probably working on this (and other projects) full time and getting paid aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@all, let's try and keep this thread on-topic please and not descend into off-topic discussions/speculation on if/how much people are getting paid!

 

This thread specifically relates to the discussion of Sync 1.4.72. If your comments are not related to 1.4.72, this isn't the thread to post in.

 

Thank you for your cooperation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough comment GreatMarko, although no mention has been made about how much people are being paid, so please be accurate with your wrist slapping! :-)

So, back ON topic;  have you any idea when the known errors that were released with 1.4.72 as mentioned above and by yourself might be fixed - and in what order of priority they have been placed? there are a few interested parties out there who I am sure would like an answer.  We can (And probably will) continue to post our feedback on this release, but from what you have already said it seems there is no need?  Perhaps you could provide us with a list of actual know issues/bugs/errors in order that we can avoid posting complaints about these and only focus on those that are not yet known?  I am sure that would save a lot of people a lot of time and anguish.

Thanks in advance,

Colin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can (And probably will) continue to post our feedback on this release, but from what you have already said it seems there is no need?  Perhaps you could provide us with a list of actual know issues/bugs/errors in order that we can avoid posting complaints about these and only focus on those that are not yet known?  I am sure that would save a lot of people a lot of time and anguish.

Hi Colin,

You've taken my comment in relation to this somewhat out of context - I'm not at all saying there's "no need" to provide further feedback on 1.4.72! - all constructive feedback (good or bad) is welcome!

My comment was in direct response to your specific concern that you felt that had you been part of the "alpha" phase of 1.4 that all the various issues would have already been identified and fixed before the "beta" of 1.4 was released earlier this week, and because you weren't part of the "alpha" that instead these issues have gone unnoticed (i.e. that those who were involved in the "alpha" phase didn't pick up on these issues - which isn't the case!). I was simply clarifying/confirming that many of issues/complaints that users have posted about here since 1.4 went "public" earlier this week were previously identified during the "alpha" phase by testers.

However, that's not to say that EVERY issue that's been posted about had been picked up during "alpha", nor is it to say the devs don't want to hear about issues that are already known about! In fact, the more they hear about the same specific issues, the more they can gauge how important/widespread/what the reaction is amongst users, which may in turn influence the order in which things are fixed/addressed/changed in subsequent 1.4.x builds.

 

So keep providing your feedback, folks! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New 1.4 version is awesome!

The recent updates to the 1.3.x built have made it worse and worse on my ARM based Raspberry Pi, leading up to constant CPU Usage around 50-70%. Upon the first 1.4 run I was a bit concerned it might have gotten worse (mainly because of 1-2 other reports in this thread), but I'm quite happy with how things are now.

Installed it last evening, changes in CPU are clearly visible:

imagerpi.png

 

Keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.