Wishlist (Archive)

[aurika]

If you delete a file by the sync application, you should be asked if you want to keep a deletion stub. That would mean, that the file on the other side is still being kept, but you could move the original file to another (non-shared) place (i.e. to save space on this volume).

Edited May 22, 2014 by GreatMarko
Deleted files, by default, are now moved to .SyncArchive folders on other devices

[nunu]

Maybe it is redundant : to be able to set a ownership of the share folder. The ownership could be the first to create the directory and define a password. To "recover" the ownership after a device crash, just need to add the share folder with the "ownership" password.

By beeing the ownership, sync share folder rules can be defined. As the purpose of the appsync is to share with friends or other guys some files, i don't want to loose my original files because one of my friends has deleted files in his shared folder. So i can duplicate all my share data, OR i define a rule to set my share folder as "undeletable" if a remote share folder has deleted one of my file.

So what kind of rules for the ownership?
- Read only : no files coming from other share folder will be added (there is only the ownership of the share folder that can add new files that will be synchronized with others)
- No deletion : If a remote file "has been removed" e, the file is kept (i.e ownership folder)
- No update : If a remote file "has been modified", the original file is kept (i.e ownership folder)

An other important thing i think, is to be able to control who is part of the network. And it could be cool, to define a rule that ask ownership a "ADD device" request. That avoid to share folder with people that you don't want on your network!

regards
nunu

Edited May 22, 2014 by GreatMarko
Read-Only Secrets are now supported. In addition, .SyncArchive ensures that files deleted on other devices can still be recovered

[pevtsoff]

Many thanks for app!
Wishes:

1. Scheduled Sync
2. Left button double click on systray icon opens main sync folder, may be it should be marked in the list.
3. Refresh button for devices.
4. Secret restore (not sure)
5. Distributed storage, I think all of us could allocate some 100 - 1000000 Mb on our non critical PC`s.
6. Android app.
7. Thanks again (:

Edited May 23, 2014 by GreatMarko
Struck-through items are suggestions which now have their own dedicated threads in the Feature Requests forum. Android app now available

[GreatMarko]

2. Left button double click on systray icon opens main sync folder, may be it should be marked in the list.

This would only be of use if you were syncing a single folder though, surely? If you're syncing multiple folders, there isn't a "main sync" folder!?

3. Refresh button for devices.

As SyncApp automatically detects changes and then syncs right away, a "Refresh" button would be redundant, unless of course the "Scheduled Sync" type feature you mentioned is implimented (which according to Kos' earlier post it's now on their waiting list) - then it would indeed be useful to have a way to force a manual sync at the click of a button.

4. Secret restore (not sure)

I'm curious to know what you mean by "secret restore"?!

5. Distributed storage, I think all of us could allocate some 100 - 1000000 Mb on our non critical PC`s.

Doesn't SyncApp already provide this? i.e. a way to keep your files stored and accessible across multiple devices?

6. Android app.

"Mobile support (iPhone, Android) will be the first thing we will target after SyncApp will be released in public" according to this thread: http://forum.bittorr...ns-for-android/

[pevtsoff]

5. Distributed storage, I think all of us could allocate some 100 - 1000000 Mb on our non critical PC`s.

Doesn't SyncApp already provide this? i.e. a way to keep your files stored and accessible across multiple devices?

I`v ment access when all devises are down.

Under main folder I understand the folder that is used for co-working, it can be marked in the list.

There is no need to look in backup or data folders.

"I'm curious to know what you mean by "secret restore"?!"

Something like SMS or mail service.

[kapiteined]

Nice app, thanks!

I would like to see a cloud storage, based on the sync app.

if a lot of people share disk space (a usb disk hooked up to a raspberry pi), we could have a *giant* fileserver.

It would need redundancy in case users go offline, and it would need encrypted storage, so you are the only one who can access your data.

And you can not know if there is copyright protected material present on your usb disk, belonging to someone else.

Last whish:

Please opensource the project, so people can see what is done with their data!

[GreatMarko]

Whilst a "cloud storage" service may be nice, I think many users simply wouldn't use this, either becuase they already use a different cloud storage solution (i.e SkyDrive), or they wouldn't trust BitTorrent with their data.

What's really interesting is if you take the example of Cubby (cubby.com). They initially offered a free "direct sync" feature in their sync software allowing you to sync peer-to-peer, along with a few GB's of free cloud storage so that you could sync between devices when they were off-line.

However, Cubby then made the crazy decision to start charging for peer-to-peer sync, but tried to "sweeten" the deal by including 100GB of cloud storage as part of the new price. There was a massive backlash from Cubby users (http://help.cubby.com/forums/169907-general/suggestions/3465259-add-directsync-to-basic-version) over this change, with many arguing that they simply didn't need 100GB of cloud storage, and shouldn't have to pay for that when all they want to be able to do is sync files between their own devices! ...the result being, users left Cubby in their droves!!

So, the lessons for BitTorrent to learn from this Cubby fiasco, are; "Are users really looking a new cloud storage solution, a peer-peer sync solution, or both?" ...Whilst it would of course be perfect to have both of these features in a single offering (like Mesh did!), BitTorrent need to be careful that the peer-peer sync side of things wouldn't suffer as a result of any venutre into cloud storage! (in a similar way that the Cubby service has suffered)

Given that there are many FREE cloud storage storage offerings currently available (SkyDrive, DropBox, GDrive, etc), I think BitTorrent could have a hard time competing with these in offering their own cloud storage. SyncApp currently fills a nice hole in the market, and I for one hope they take full advantage of that by developing an amazing peer-to-peer sync solution, and then worry about any potential cloud integration at a later date!

[iMok]

Whilst a "cloud storage" service may be nice, I think many users simply wouldn't use this, either becuase they already use a different cloud storage solution (i.e SkyDrive), or they wouldn't trust BitTorrent with their data.

What's really interesting is if you take the example of Cubby (cubby.com). They initially offered a free "direct sync" feature in their sync software allowing you to sync peer-to-peer, along with a few GB's of free cloud storage so that you could sync between devices when they were off-line.

However, Cubby then made the crazy decision to start charging for peer-to-peer sync, but tried to "sweeten" the deal by including 100GB of cloud storage as part of the new price. There was a massive backlash from Cubby users (http://help.cubby.co...o-basic-version) over this change, with many arguing that they simply didn't need 100GB of cloud storage, and shouldn't have to pay for that when all they want to be able to do is sync files between their own devices! ...the result being, users left Cubby in their droves!!

So, the lessons for BitTorrent to learn from this Cubby fiasco, are; "Are users really looking a new cloud storage solution, a peer-peer sync solution, or both?" ...Whilst it would of course be perfect to have both of these features in a single offering (like Mesh did!), BitTorrent need to be careful that the peer-peer sync side of things wouldn't suffer as a result of any venutre into cloud storage! (in a similar way that the Cubby service has suffered)

Given that there are many FREE cloud storage storage offerings currently available (SkyDrive, DropBox, GDrive, etc), I think BitTorrent could have a hard time competing with these in offering their own cloud storage. SyncApp currently fills a nice hole in the market, and I for one hope they take full advantage of that by developing an amazing peer-to-peer sync solution, and then worry about any potential cloud integration at a later date!

Agree, SyncApp needs to be polished and offer a paid cloud storage option for who need it. Even a minimum free 1GB storage cloud cache to sync document changes without both ends being up would bump user base a lot.

Anyway, I expect the base system to be kept as it is

[robinabo]

The base system is all I need. One always on desktop syncing with all my laptops. Encrypted connection with no size limits. A slice of heaven courtesy of bittorent.

[kapiteined]

Whilst a "cloud storage" service may be nice, I think many users simply wouldn't use this, either becuase they already use a different cloud storage solution (i.e SkyDrive), or they wouldn't trust BitTorrent with their data.

What's really interesting is if you take the example of Cubby (cubby.com). They initially offered a free "direct sync" feature in their sync software allowing you to sync peer-to-peer, along with a few GB's of free cloud storage so that you could sync between devices when they were off-line.

><SNIP><

I agree that there are more "cloud storage" providers, but what would make SyncApp unique, is a distributed cloud storage.

They can take down Mega(upload), they can force storage providers to provide a copy of your data.

If SyncApp could be used as a distributed cloud storage, it would be virtually impossible to remove the data.

if for example WikiLeaks wants to store some documents, there wouldn't be a party to ask to take the data offline.

People suffering from represive regimes, could store their data and remain anonymous.

And trusting Bittorrent with your data is very easy if you are able to encrypt it,

[Xaotikdesigns]

Given that there are many FREE cloud storage storage offerings currently available (SkyDrive, DropBox, GDrive, etc), I think BitTorrent could have a hard time competing with these in offering their own cloud storage. SyncApp currently fills a nice hole in the market, and I for one hope they take full advantage of that by developing an amazing peer-to-peer sync solution, and then worry about any potential cloud integration at a later date!

I think it would be nice to connect Sync to a free cloud service I already use. I'm not sure how it would work on the authentication side, or how well the bittorrent protocols would work with them, but setting up my dropbox, box.net, cubby, skydrive, googledrive, or any other cloud service as another synced device would be rather nice.

They could act as another peer to help with downloads. My shared files would still be available if my computer is off. Of course, at that point, I may as well just share them via the options on the cloud storage site.

Now if SyncApp could somehow combine all my cloud storage into one large drive, and share via them all, it would be really useful. I could share a 15GB file that won' fit on just one service, but will if SyncApp breaks it up into chunks across each service, and then shares those chunks along with the original on my computer...

But that's probably looking into the distant future.

[dtokushige]

restore unfinished downloads and resume.

let's say 3 computers are syncing with each other, and are currently downloading new files from computer1.

computer2 finishes first and inadvertently deletes the files from his sync folder. all other computers have their files moved to the .SyncTrash folder automatically. there needs to be a way to not only restore these partially downloaded files, but also to resume the download.

a solution to this would be provide both a "2-way sync" feature (syncapp as it exists today) and a "1-way sync" feature. while both features would allow the usual sharing of file pieces among all the computers, any folder created as a "1-way sync" would not propagate changes to the others. in other words, a "1-way sync" folder could download and upload and DOWNLOADED data, but it would not share any new files added to it locally...and would not propagate any deletions done locally.

the "1-way sync" folder would need to be just an option you can set locally. so the use case would be for one hosting computer to set up a 2way sync folder and populate it with files. all the other computers sharing that folder would click the option to change their local sync folder to a "1-way sync". if any file is deleted/added from/to a 1-way sync folder, it does not affect any other computer. if a file is deleted/added from/to the 2-way sync folder, it does affect all other sync'd folders. that way 1 machine can share files to multiple machines without having to worry about the receiving machines accidentally deleting the original files.

[MonoTouch]

The beta version will need a detection of the network I'm connected to such that I get asked weather I want to sync or not.

Why?

I use syncapp on my laptiop at home, then I went to the campus and forgot that syncapp is running. After 10 minuted I got an email from the IT department because they detected p2p network (they said someting about ToS and possibliy illegal downloads, just the typical bla bla).

When this app is set public, regular users might get ->really<- scared when they get such an email! And this is no good.

How:

When installing ons should get asked: a) always sync whitelist sync

The details are up to you=)

[GreatMarko]

MonoTouch does raise an interesting point!

I wonder though if by simply setting SyncApp to use a "standard" port - i.e. Port 80, this would have got around this particular issue of SyncApp raising alarms with corporate IT departments, as it would then just look like standard internet traffic?

But what IT Departments need to realise is that P2P itself is NOT inherently illegal - downloading & publicly sharing illegal .torrent files, etc may well be, but the P2P technology itself isn't, and SyncApp has nothing to do with downloading and sharing .torrents!

So there are plenty of misconceptions about. For example, on Cubby's forums, when SyncApp was mentioned as an alternative, one user commented "Sorry, I would not allow bit torrent anywhere near my data!"

BitTorrent do have a great product here... but I think a lot of education is going to be needed to change some people's perception and understanding of what exactly SyncApp is/does!

Anyway, getting back to the original point - maybe if/when sync "scheduling" is introduced to SyncApp, this will be all that is needed to address this issue i.e. if you use your laptop at work during the day time, set up a sync schedule so that SyncApp only syncs data in the evenings when you're back home?

[iMok]

We should take in account in this WishList that almost everything is doable, but many of your request are far behind of this software "explicit" purpose or should be done with a different approach, not at the SyncApp end

The beta version will need a detection of the network I'm connected to such that I get asked weather I want to sync or not.

Why?

I use syncapp on my laptiop at home, then I went to the campus and forgot that syncapp is running. After 10 minuted I got an email from the IT department because they detected p2p network (they said someting about ToS and possibliy illegal downloads, just the typical bla bla).

When this app is set public, regular users might get ->really<- scared when they get such an email! And this is no good.

How:

When installing ons should get asked: a) always sync whitelist sync

The details are up to you=)

Network profiles have done for ages what you ask for. Profile to launch SyncApp when connected to a "safe" network, kill it when not.

[biggles621]

• Ability to specify file types not to sync per folder e.g. exclude *.ini *.tmp
• Instructions / guidance on using UPNP on router and symbology in left hand column of Devices tab. I routinely have my router UPNP turned off. The app wouldn't sync with a remote PC of mine until I turned on UPNP. Curiously though, it now continues to sync with UPNP turned off.

Great app, keep up the good work. Thanks.

Edited May 23, 2014 by GreatMarko
Filetypes can now be excluded through the use of .SyncIgnore

[upcboy]

MonoTouch does raise an interesting point!

I wonder though if by simply setting SyncApp to use a "standard" port - i.e. Port 80, this would have got around this particular issue of SyncApp raising alarms with corporate IT departments, as it would then just look like standard internet traffic?

But what IT Departments need to realise is that P2P itself is NOT inherently illegal - downloading & publicly sharing illegal .torrent files, etc may well be, but the P2P technology itself isn't, and SyncApp has nothing to do with downloading and sharing .torrents!

So there are plenty of misconceptions about. For example, on Cubby's forums, when SyncApp was mentioned as an alternative, one user commented "Sorry, I would not allow bit torrent anywhere near my data!"

BitTorrent do have a great product here... but I think a lot of education is going to be needed to change some people's perception and understanding of what exactly SyncApp is/does!

Anyway, getting back to the original point - maybe if/when sync "scheduling" is introduced to SyncApp, this will be all that is needed to address this issue i.e. if you use your laptop at work during the day time, set up a sync schedule so that SyncApp only syncs data in the evenings when you're back home?

I work as IT. And our Whole Team is backing this project. b/c of its advantages. The issue is most Buisnesses are limited to a 10meg fiber line. (thats the lucky ones) with 20-100 people on it. Any Software that isn't work related and increased Bandwith Usage is deemed unacceptable.

[stallemanden]

We should take in account in this WishList that almost everything is doable, but many of your request are far behind of this software "explicit" purpose or should be done with a different approach, not at the SyncApp end

I second that.

Of course it could be nice to have the ability to ALSO sync the data to one of the many cloud services that exists, but I totally agree.

If you want sync, but don't have the ability to have a computer/nas online at all times, and it's not enough for you to sync files when on the same network - SyncApp is not the right solution for you.

I see SyncApp as a GREAT alternative to using different kinds of cloud storage, where your data is left entirely in the hands of some company with millions of users.

I love the idea, that I control my data. I decide who has access and I decide what data is deleted or kept.

It's no longer a matter of trusting some corporation with my data. I will always know where and what data I have.

To sum up

I wouldn't personally use the a feature to also sync data with a known cloud storage - If I wanted to do that, I would use that service instead.

[gabor]

I agree that there are more "cloud storage" providers, but what would make SyncApp unique, is a distributed cloud storage.

They can take down Mega(upload), they can force storage providers to provide a copy of your data.

If SyncApp could be used as a distributed cloud storage, it would be virtually impossible to remove the data.

if for example WikiLeaks wants to store some documents, there wouldn't be a party to ask to take the data offline.

People suffering from represive regimes, could store their data and remain anonymous.

And trusting Bittorrent with your data is very easy if you are able to encrypt it,

Do you mean offering your idle storage for others like wuala started? I would be happy to have my data synced between my 2 desktops, 1 laptop, 1 ubuntu laptop, 1osx imac and my 2 NAS at 2 locations it looks enough to be distributed for me.

[gabor]

is there a plan in the far future about multilang interface?

Edited May 23, 2014 by GreatMarko
Sync now supports a number of additional languages (12 at time of writing, with more being added all the time)

[avpx]

I suggest possibility to create a special secret key for folder in SyncApp, with such a feature:

This key will be enough to sync with remote folder, but will not to decrypt the data it contains. So it will be possible to make safe/always online "servers" in places which you do not really 100% trust. (for example at work).

Other "peers" with full secret key will still has ability to download data and open/decrypt it.

Edited May 23, 2014 by GreatMarko
Such functionality is now available through "encrypted peers"

[robert-info]

I had the same idea of using BT for syncing files in my mind and I thougth also about the combining it with an backup-server.

The backup-server would be an normal peer, which may never forget a state of the system.

Edited May 23, 2014 by GreatMarko
"Backup" functionality (or one-way syncing) is now available through the use of "Read Only" secrets and .SyncArchive

[ksharlaimov]

I've been tested Sync for a few days and migrated to it from DropBox. However, I have a suggestion to improve sync speed dramatically.

Imagine the scenario: I have 2 nodes ("A" and "B") linked together by Sync. If I move a file within a shared folder on "A" without modifying it, Sync moves the file to "SyncTrash" from old location on "B" and re-syncs the very same file to its new location from "A" consuming time and bandwidth.

It'd be nice if Sync maintained the list of files (and their infohashes) not only in shared folder itself but also in that folder's SyncTrash. By doing so Sync would be able to detect if the "known" file is going to be transfered from other peer, and restore it from it's local copy (with the same infohash) instead of copying it over the network again.

[hobbes80]

I agree that there are more "cloud storage" providers, but what would make SyncApp unique, is a distributed cloud storage.

They can take down Mega(upload), they can force storage providers to provide a copy of your data.

If SyncApp could be used as a distributed cloud storage, it would be virtually impossible to remove the data.

if for example WikiLeaks wants to store some documents, there wouldn't be a party to ask to take the data offline.

People suffering from represive regimes, could store their data and remain anonymous.

And trusting Bittorrent with your data is very easy if you are able to encrypt it,

Do you mean offering your idle storage for others like wuala started? I would be happy to have my data synced between my 2 desktops, 1 laptop, 1 ubuntu laptop, 1osx imac and my 2 NAS at 2 locations it looks enough to be distributed for me.

Symform also does this. While I love the idea of distributed storage, in practice it has been impractical. Data sitting on other people's machines can be brute forced, even if encrypted. I agree with the other folks who have mentioned linking to dropbox and drive through APIs that it would be redundant. Why use SyncApp if your using another cloud-storage service?

However, it would be really nice to be able to link all of your SyncApp devices to an S3 or similar object bucket. Sync your stuff to S3 and then be able to enable SyncApp to cache only items being used.

S3 and your Desktop become your repository and backup, your mobile devices (laptop,phone,etc..) become your cached devices. This would be a really powerful tool for small businesses as well. You could put SyncApp on all the laptops, use S3 as your "file server" and still move files around the office quickly between anyone who has a cached copy of it.

[mmartinez74]

Command Line component for:

• Subscribing to a shared folder sync. That way you could remotely SSH or telnet into a system and connect it to a shared folder
  
• Creating a shared folder.
  
• Bandwidth settings.
  

Email notifications

Scriptability....to allow folks to add a function or step in the process, like encryption...without it needing to be a part of the program functionality.