Discussion: Is The 10 Folder Limit The Only Reason You Won't Be Upgrading From 1.4 To 2.0 Free?

[AetherMichael]

What the crap were you thinking????

This project was supposed to be improvements for the community over dropbox and others with their 2gb limits or folder caps,  Now YOU are doing a 10 folder limit on the free version?  Good Luck.

[richinmusic]

I actually could care less about the folder number limits. For my needs, I can have one giant folder with zero problems. I can understand how this can pose a problem for some users, so I won't go as far as saying that it is a non-issue...It is a non-issue for me.

But I have a huge problem with this whole subscription idea for software that has no reason to be on an on-going subscription. I think it is a brilliant piece of code, and would be happy to pay decent money as a one-time fee, and paid upgrades IF the newly implemented features are something I want/need. But a subscription? Nope.

[Shoop83]

No, it is not the only reason. There are too many changes in the wrong direction for my taste. I wish I had never upgraded. Seriously, the Beta is supposed to be a testing ground to make the official release glorious. The official release is not supposed to debut as an entirely new piece of software.

 

Not needing a profile, username, identity, alias, what have you was a HUGE part of the appeal of Sync. It was simple. I have the program and a folder. My friend has the program. I send him a code, now he has the folder. Now, having to have a primary device and sub devices? That is overly complex. Does my friend say his is the primary device, or does he need to be a sub to my device to connect to my swarm?

The new 'feature' of displaying all possible synced folders to all connected devices is terrible. What if I have synced folders between my home and mobile that I don't want displayed or even hinted at on my work computer?

The 10 folder limit is ludicrous. It is arbitrary and it is an obvious money grab. This software is not run on any servers owned or operated by BitTorrent. This software runs on my devices and uses my bandwidth and my hard drives. BitTorrent does not back anything up, they shouldn't even ever be aware of what is going on in my own personal cloud. That is part of the appeal. Why should there be any kind of limit on the number of folders I want syncing between all my devices and my friends' devices? Nothing changes for BitTorrent if I have 10 folders or 100 folders.

 

Does it?

 

The appeal is that this is a completely self hosted cloud. That no one else has access to or can even connect to the cloud unless a member invites them in. So, why the folder limit? Two possible scenarios are it is a money grab (likely) or they don't want to tax their own hardware as they watch through the back door (unlikely, but who knows). There are more scenarios, but those are the most incendiary I can come up with right now.

 

(Taking off my tin foil hat.)

 

I am extremely unhappy with the direction this software has taken. Beta was extremely simple and useful. I could control who saw my files and where they went. 2.0 has become unreasonably complicated and I am not confident I can set it up to be as secure as I would like it to be.

 

Many people have mentioned other software that performs a similar function as Beta. I am going to be checking them out and will likely switch unless you folks get your act together with 2.0.

[ywuw2486]

For myself.  The 10 folder limit was only the beginning.

I have followed this project with great interest for several years.  I have 7 servers across several geographical areas syncing and replicating roughly 20TB of content, and hundreds of folders, and users.  As others have said...My power, my hardware, my bandwidth.

I am delighted to contribute, but not to rent.

As shoop83 said, it was the anonymity that gave the project it's initial appeal.  Simple to use, largely scalable. But most of all PRIVATE.

2.0 and this poorly conceived money grab is so bad that I don't see you ever recovering from the distrust you've engendered.

It's difficult to imagine that the intelligence that brought us to 1.4.111 could be the same stupidity that conceived 2.0 and it's so called "features".  Subscription? For what I ask?

Luckily whenever there is a release like this I always test it in a virtual machine first, and the only casualty of the 2.0 upgrade was my IOS devices which automatically updated before I could get the word out to my user base. Unfortunately I can't revert them to the working version of the software.

In the mean time I've secured my copies of the last working version of the software for every platform possible including a private btsync tracker so that I can maintain my configuration till Syncthing reaches the level of development that 1.4.111 was at before it was ruined.

I will be moving on, trust this badly betrayed can't ever really be regained, but would like to give a heart felt thanks to the developers.  Great work up until 2.0.  First rate piece of code.  I'm sorry to see the project die this way.  So much potential.

But on the bright side think of how prominently you'll figure in college courses on business in that chapter entitled "How to ruin your company and alienate your user-base quickly and permanently."

I speak for all of us when I add btsync 2.0 to that lofty list of business flops that include:

New Coke
Clear Pepsi
Microsoft WebTV Plus
Windows Millennium Edition
Lifesavers Soda
Coors Mountain Spring Water
Apple Newton
Sony Betamax
Ford Edsel

 

Farewell btsync.

 

[ojchase]

Mostly yes. Though I'm also a little concerned about the usability of 2.0 from some comments.

[boruguru]

Keep the promise. Bad ethics. Keep the features we use to have in 1.4.

[jespinoza]

@ywuw2486,

 

I have a few questions for you and would love the opportunity to pick your brain on your setup. Mainly, because that pretty much is EXACTLY what I was hoping to use BTSync for.

 

It looks like the BT Staff has disabled the ability for us to send/receive private messages on here.

 

Please let me know a preferred way to contact you, without you getting spammed.

 

Thanks,

 

J.

[ywuw2486]

Jespinoza...send me an email at ywuw2486 at hotmail dot com. Happy to help any way I can.

[Jennifer Rasmussen]

Bad ethics. Bait and switch tactics are a sleasy way of doing business, so my answer is (actually was, since I just switched away from BT Sync) yes.

 

Good bye BT Sync and hello Syncthing. It only took an hour to research and setup - so time well spent =)

Edited May 9, 2015 by Jennifer Rasmussen

[Transisto]

I moved to Syncthing too and love it.

[iswrong]

I moved to Syncthing too and love it.

 

I want to like Syncthing, but (1) it's too difficult to set up for family/colleagues; (2) it doesn't provide trackers/relays so it doesn't work if both peers are behind NAT and/or firewall with no control over port forwarding; (3) does not support selective sync; (4) does not support sharing links, late permission revokes, etc.

 

tl;dr nice for hobbyist use or for business use where you just want to sync two machines on a network, but I bet for many users not a real replacement for BTSync, Dropbox, etc.

 

It's a bit disingenuous that people present in these forums as a general replacement of BTSync. It's not yet, and it will probably take a while before it is (e.g. because its current architecture doesn't support it).

[mexter]

I want to like Syncthing, but (1) it's too difficult to set up for family/colleagues; (2) it doesn't provide trackers/relays so it doesn't work if both peers are behind NAT and/or firewall with no control over port forwarding; (3) does not support selective sync; (4) does not support sharing links, late permission revokes, etc.

 

tl;dr nice for hobbyist use or for business use where you just want to sync two machines on a network, but I bet for many users not a real replacement for BTSync, Dropbox, etc.

 

It's a bit disingenuous that people present in these forums as a general replacement of BTSync. It's not yet, and it will probably take a while before it is (e.g. because its current architecture doesn't support it).

I agree with you. I'm using a combination of SyncThing and BTSync 1.4 right now because ST simply isn't robust enough. I'm not yet ready to trust it with the bulk of my data. But it's getting there.

 

I don't currently care about sharing links (and actively dislike it). Permissions and selective sync is something I want, but have so far lived without and can comfortably continue to do so. 

[2disbetter]

I want to like Syncthing, but (1) it's too difficult to set up for family/colleagues; (2) it doesn't provide trackers/relays so it doesn't work if both peers are behind NAT and/or firewall with no control over port forwarding; (3) does not support selective sync; (4) does not support sharing links, late permission revokes, etc.

 

tl;dr nice for hobbyist use or for business use where you just want to sync two machines on a network, but I bet for many users not a real replacement for BTSync, Dropbox, etc.

 

It's a bit disingenuous that people present in these forums as a general replacement of BTSync. It's not yet, and it will probably take a while before it is (e.g. because its current architecture doesn't support it).

 

 

I agree with you. I'm using a combination of SyncThing and BTSync 1.4 right now because ST simply isn't robust enough. I'm not yet ready to trust it with the bulk of my data. But it's getting there.

 

I don't currently care about sharing links (and actively dislike it). Permissions and selective sync is something I want, but have so far lived without and can comfortably continue to do so. 

 

And this gentlemen is the crux of it. While I totally get the issue everyone has with BT, there just isn't anything else out on the market that comes anywhere close to what Sync offers. From a technology standpoint it is a triumph of software engineering. File synchronization is a very complex subject (I really admired the engineering that makes dropbox work as well, it's also top notch.) It really is unfortunate that such a feat has to be mired by less than savory business tactics. 

 

I sincerely hope that this impasse (I'm referring to the trust issue) is fixed for those leaving for other solutions, because it would be a shame to allow such a thing to keep Sync from flourishing. 

 

2d

[mexter]

And this gentlemen is the crux of it. While I totally get the issue everyone has with BT, there just isn't anything else out on the market that comes anywhere close to what Sync offers. From a technology standpoint it is a triumph of software engineering. File synchronization is a very complex subject (I really admired the engineering that makes dropbox work as well, it's also top notch.) It really is unfortunate that such a feat has to be mired by less than savory business tactics. 

 

I sincerely hope that this impasse (I'm referring to the trust issue) is fixed for those leaving for other solutions, because it would be a shame to allow such a thing to keep Sync from flourishing. 

 

I think you take my words a little further than I had intended. Syncthing isn't that far off of 1.4's functionality. It's close enough that if 1.4 suddenly stopped working that I could probably have it up in a day or two. But I'm hesitant about moving everything from a product that is "good enough" even if I'm not happy with the present situation.

 

This being said, I'm in the process of moving over. The mobile devices are done, and I'm starting to migrate the laptops. 

I think I chose my words poorly when I said "isn't robust enough". My initial testing has had some glitches, but the reality is I have things working the way that I want, and am loath to change. But there is exactly 0% chance that I will purchase or use 2.0 as is. At this point, I'm not sure I would even if it were free due to the identities concept coupled with the trust issues and the near total lack of dialogue from the BT side. So change is coming. 

[2disbetter]

I think you take my words a little further than I had intended. Syncthing isn't that far off of 1.4's functionality. It's close enough that if 1.4 suddenly stopped working that I could probably have it up in a day or two. But I'm hesitant about moving everything from a product that is "good enough" even if I'm not happy with the present situation.

 

This being said, I'm in the process of moving over. The mobile devices are done, and I'm starting to migrate the laptops. 

I think I chose my words poorly when I said "isn't robust enough". My initial testing has had some glitches, but the reality is I have things working the way that I want, and am loath to change. But there is exactly 0% chance that I will purchase or use 2.0 as is. At this point, I'm not sure I would even if it were free due to the identities concept coupled with the trust issues and the near total lack of dialogue from the BT side. So change is coming. 

 

I think you might be reading into my comments being based on your comments a little too much. You are content with Syncthing. That doesn't make it equal to BT Sync. 

 

2d

 

2d

[mexter]

I think you might be reading into my comments being based on your comments a little too much. You are content with Syncthing. That doesn't make it equal to BT Sync. 

 

 

I agree with that. OTOH, on its current trajectory, I'm not sure how much longer this will remain true. 

 

 -me -

[urza]

I switched to Syncthing and never looked back...

[jdevora]

Yes,

 

And the fact that the Pro version is too expensive, specially if you compare it when services that give you the synchronization AND the storage for the same amount.

 

I was hopping for a "one off payment" or a 2.0 "mini-Pro" version that  for a 1/4 of the money get  gets rid of the 10 folders limitation (keeping all the other limitations)

[kuchiru]

Cant one 'Folder' contain like hundreds of subfolders ? 

[mexter]

Cant one 'Folder' contain like hundreds of subfolders ? 

Yes.

[Kovah]

2) Given that no features of 1.4 would be lost with 2.0 promise (see separate thread) I can no longer trust this company. What's to say in 3.0 that gets reduced to FIVE folders? Or none at all?

 

Exactly what I think. I do not trust Bittorrent anymore. I'll take a look at alternatives like Syncthing.

 

You want to loose happy users? Because this is how you loose happy users!

[2disbetter]

Yes.

 

So the question is: do sub folders count as folders under this 10 folder limit. If they don't then I really don't understand all the frustration over the 10 folder limit. 

 

Under DropBox (for example) you get one folder that you have to add stuff too. Under the free version of BT Sync you get 10 and they can all be anywhere you want, and include existing folders. 

 

Of course if sub folders count, then I completely understand this thread. 

 

2d

[iswrong]

Under DropBox (for example) you get one folder that you have to add stuff too. Under the free version of BT Sync you get 10 and they can all be anywhere you want, and include existing folders. 

 

Wrong comparison. Dropbox is one folder, but you can share as many subfolders as you want. With BTSync's 10 folder limit, it also means that you can only share 10 different folders with others.

[mexter]

So the question is: do sub folders count as folders under this 10 folder limit. If they don't then I really don't understand all the frustration over the 10 folder limit. 

 

Under DropBox (for example) you get one folder that you have to add stuff too. Under the free version of BT Sync you get 10 and they can all be anywhere you want, and include existing folders. 

 

Of course if sub folders count, then I completely understand this thread. 

 

2d

 

Sub folders do not count.

 

As for why the frustration, because I'm not willing to alter my entire file structure in order to accommodate a newly added limitation. I could absolutely force it to work using less than ten folders. Symbolic links, for example, might work as subfolders under this system. But that misses the point. They went back on their word and created this limitation. Who is to say that they won't make it 5 folders in version 3? (And them promising not to, which they haven't, means nothing at this point. No credibility exists in this dojo.)

 

Now as for Dropbox, it's not a comparable product. I've never used Sync the way I use Dropbox.

 

For me, Sync is more of a backup tool / convenience. I have personal photos and videos backed up between 2-3 computers, photos and videos from the inlaws backed up onto mine, my phone and my wife's phone's download, photos, and backup directories mirrored with a computer, Windows (My) Documents shared between my laptop and desktop, a share between my wife's laptop and mine, A few others.

 

Dropbox is a cloud solution where I only put things I'm comfortable putting onto the cloud and / or I need accessible on a machine other than one of my own. Same with OneDrive, Google Drive, Box, etc. I would consider using those services to backup my photos and videos, but nothing else.

[jespinoza]

Sub folders do not count.

 

As for why the frustration, because I'm not willing to alter my entire file structure in order to accommodate a newly added limitation. I could absolutely force it to work using less than ten folders. Symbolic links, for example, might work as subfolders under this system. But that misses the point. They went back on their word and created this limitation. Who is to say that they won't make it 5 folders in version 3? (And them promising not to, which they haven't, means nothing at this point. No credibility exists in this dojo.)

 

Now as for Dropbox, it's not a comparable product. I've never used Sync the way I use Dropbox.

 

For me, Sync is more of a backup tool / convenience. I have personal photos and videos backed up between 2-3 computers, photos and videos from the inlaws backed up onto mine, my phone and my wife's phone's download, photos, and backup directories mirrored with a computer, Windows (My) Documents shared between my laptop and desktop, a share between my wife's laptop and mine, A few others.

 

Dropbox is a cloud solution where I only put things I'm comfortable putting onto the cloud and / or I need accessible on a machine other than one of my own. Same with OneDrive, Google Drive, Box, etc. I would consider using those services to backup my photos and videos, but nothing else.

 

+1