aurika

Wishlist (Archive)

Recommended Posts

The ability to set rules for synchronisation would be great !

For example the possibility to set very advanced rules, like only synch files with certain parameters.

An example : synch only files that have been modified from DATE to DATE

Thanks for your awsome work !

Sorry for my english, I'm french

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if we get more options for share management from the command-line like:

--generate-one-time-secret <ro|rw> <secret>

--add-folder <path> <secret>

--remove-folder <secret>

--folder-preferences <secret> <Use-relay-server-when-required|Use-tracker-server|Search LAN|Search-DHT-network|Delete-files-to-Sync-Trash|Use-predefined-hosts> <on|off|ip:port[;ip:port]>

--list-folders

--get-path <secret>

--folder-status <secret>

--list-files-in-folder <secret> <bare-format|long-format|download-status>

--folder-as-magnet <secret>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to be able to create a share link from a synced folder that would take a newbie to a site that would offer the software for download with preconfigured settings for said share. That way I could share stuff with my less technical friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make .SyncIgnore apply to remote paths too. That way it could serve as an exclude list and selective sync.

They're not synced so I don't see why not. Two birds, one stone.

Sure we could end up with a bunch of uncomplete shares but that shouldn't be a probem with torrent style sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me that the webinterface in the linux version is not bound to localhost, but to any ip. Since the webinterface can be used to read the secrets, I'd rather have it bound to localhost, with the option to expose it to the entire network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple with inline EncFS algorithm.

Hey there.

Some others have ased for "encrypted only secrets".

I second this, but I want to slightly modify this.

I'm thinking of a second step of security.

Level 1: Sync with default secrets, have them either read, write or one-time.

Level 2: Use EncFS algorithms (and add a valid EncFS configuration XML) to have only EncFS encrypted data going over the wire.

The things this would achieve:

* It's a reviewable and commonly known format encryption format.

* I can have both, completely trusted and instantly encrypted nodes and per-use encrypted ones.

Let me enlight my last point.

I have a private computer. I have complete and unique control over its hardware, so I can use e.g. hard drive encryption and my data is safe. I can use the "encrypt instantly" mode, my private data can be stored unencrypted in my btsync directory because the hard drive encryption does encryption itself.

I have another computer which is provied by my company and controlled by some administrators. They allow me to use btsync, but they do have physical access to the computer and are allowed to decrypt everything on it since the windows directroy encryption key is some active directory property. So I'm not not the only one having access to my home dir. Here I would use the read/write secret and install WinEncFS ontop of it. Now i can mount the decrypted folder on demand, the file system values are encrypted all the time.

And there might be something like a hosted VPS (there are cheap ones for a couple of dollars per month that provide 25-50GB of storage) wich can act as an always-on server. This one gets the "read/write" secret -- but I will never type in the EncFS secret here.

And that's my point:

I would add too hook points "post-persist/pre-submit" (when the file sytem change is detected, right before the synchronization to other nodes takes place) and "post-receive/pre-persist" (when there is incoming data from other nodes, just before it's written to my file system) that do inline encryption and decryption, using the EncFS standard.

Maybe this one can be extended to "add such hooks, just like GIT has". But my main point is the encryption here, not the hook API.

Kind regards,

Stephan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, thank you for this great software.

Wish 1: better indication of which folders are synced (maybe a BTSync icon over the folder in the filesystem, similar to dropbox or Tortoise/Hg)

Wish 2: information about which machines are "subscribed" to folders. Perhaps listed out in the "Shared Folders" tab.

For instance: | path: C:\wamp\www | size: 188k in 10 files | shared with: troy-laptop, work-133, toms-Computer, +10 more |

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use SSL for client - tracker communications.

I realize that even if someone catches the hash for a share, the data is still safe but sending that hash to the tracker the attacker can get the IP addresses of all connected peers and it's open season from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wishlist


  • - Pause on a per folder/share basis.
  • - Pause Syncing from right-click on systray
  • - Limit bandwidth on a per folder/share basis
  • - ETA on each file transfer and/or whole folder ETA
  • - Ability to somehow script or make large installations easy. Like a setup script or link users can click on to auto-configure folders or multiple folders.

Very impressed with the program so far. So small and so handy.
I use it around the globe ! I have a ton of different sites and users spread all over the world.

It works really well !

Edited by GreatMarko
Struck-through items are suggestions which now have their own dedicated threads in the Feature Requests forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 3000Gigabite folder in PC A, then I wanna sync it to PC B, but B has only 200G, so I don't want all file downloaded, I just wanna sync all "list" file, and download a specific file when I need it and download another file in another time when I need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest to make to webui to work with nongraphical browsers, like lynx, w3c, Xlinks so it can configure thru web in terminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please consider adding an option to use regular expressions in the syncignore file please. This would open up a huge amount of flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to request that instead of moving deleted items to .SyncTrash, we be able to remove documents to the normal deleted place on our OS (I.e. the "Recycle Bin" in Windows).

I used to use WindowsLiveMesh, and that it how it worked. I quite liked it, because it meant that the old versions where put in the normal place for deletion (and I could remove them whenever I needed more space in the standard Windows way) but I could still access them if an error was made. It was a lot more intiutive for me than dealing with a bunch of special invisible folders.

Just what would work better for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be very helpful if there were more details on how to use the config file and VERY helpful if the UI generated JSON config instead of whatever format it stores its config in. That way people could set up in the UI and then use that file with whatever other minor tweaks they want as they turn it into an official service on their NAS or PC

Also, can you make directory ownership / key tying a little cleaner. While evaluating you first create RW shares and then often end up creating RO to test out that feature for master -> slave sync. However, btsync will happily keep running even if the folder ownership is no longer correct. It took a while to realized this error was in btsync.log

Error while adding folder /share/HDA_DATA/test: Destination folder cannot be identified. Would you like to reset ownership?

How do you fix that err w/o having to rm -rf the original folder? I removed everything because it was a small test folder, but if there is a better way, include that in the docs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to have support for Mac OS file Type/Creator codes to be retained when syncing between two Mac OS computers? Many of my Mac files are shown as generic files, and it is fussy to have to re-associate them with the correct file types to open them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been addressed (not sure what to search this thread for), but is there a specification of the protocol in case someone wanted to make their own client?

(I think a good open source (GPL or maybe BSD) Qt Client for Linux/BSD/Solaris is in order, and imagine that if the protocol specification is not released, the open source people will probably reverse engineer it (see the Samba project).)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Security option: explicit host/node permissions.

I think this would be nice:

When creating a new folder you could check this option.

When adding this folder to another host, the source would get a notification that would need to be accepted manually in order to start syncing.

The permission may be revoked later.

For extra security the underlying implementation may use handshake ids instead of host ids to manage permissions. A handshake id would be generated every time you add an pre-existing folder to your host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this app. It cuts out the middle man. The only thing I wish the app had is the ability to choose which files from a separate device/computer to sync. For example, let's say I'm Computer A and I'm syncing a folder from Computer B. I may not want all the files in the folder of Computer B. Is there a way to select which files from Computer B I would like to sync? It would become a hassle if the files were too big for my hard drive. :o I hope this is clear enough.

It works very quickly and at first I was having trouble with "Cannot open destination folder", but with some research on the internet, I was able to fix that. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Let me add to this (which I fully support) that at all times all content synced has to be end to end encrypted without anybody in the world to ever be able to see file name, folder name or content unless you are one of the receivers of the share. Security is crucial at this times...

PS: Cubby´s decision was so lame, and also AeroFS charging USD 10 per syncing device without offering any online storage, are they crazy??? BitCasa is offering unlimited end to end client encrypted storage for USD 10 per month, but they dont have Syncing for now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found out about BitTorrent Sync and am testing it with a very nice initial impression.

I find that there are some things that would be great to be able to have:

1) Progress Bar: It would be nice to have a better progress bar, maybe a graphic one would work.

2) Easy Sharing and notifier: It would be amazing if you could implement a way where the other person could easily accept folder you share with them. Maybe just the possibility to send an email from within the system with the private key embedded on a special link that only BitTorrent Sync could open? This together with a short message that the user could send. Eventually the user could actually configure its SMTP parameters to send emails from within the application for example. Or the application could use an own internal messaging system too. Another alternative is that the application could just prepare the message and we just copy paste it in our email platform so that the other person could see it.

I think about this simple message system where the user could actually define what to include on the message for example with check box on an area called "Prepare Message to Share" and the user checks:

a) Personalized Message.
B) Folder Name.
c) The structure and file names of the folder being shared or at least the first 2 levels of it or snapshot only showing the 10 first files and folders.
d) Link type: Read Only, Full.
e) Proprietary Link.

Then the Sync client would prepare (or send) a message like this:
---------------------------------------------
Hi! user (email address) want to share the following folder through BitTorrent Sync with you:

Message: Hi! I wanted to share with you my pics from the holidays this year.
Folder Name: Alan´s Holiday Pics 2012
Files and Folders: Aruba, Cancun, Cuba, St. Martin
Type of Share: Read only
BitTorrent Sync Link: btSync:\\"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" (Click on the link or copy and paste this private key into your BitTorrent Sync client.
---------------------------------------------

Of course this all would be better with a centralized server managing the sharing but I am thinking on a solution that would require no server handling this type of requirements.

If this message system is incorporated within the application we could have a "Friends List" which would be needed to validate that they can connect between the two BitTorrent Sync installations and then send between themselves direct messages. I wouldn't know how this friends list could be backed up...and the keys of shared files also...Just thinking out loud here :)

3) Friendly names and ordering: It would be great if I could rename the device´s name or add a description to it. Also grouping shares shared with devices with a Tree menu and (+) sign beside it would help organize when sharing a lot of files.

4) Right click and share: Windows Explorer/Mac integration, for example if by right clicking on a folder we could "Share on BitTTorrent" without having to look for the folder within the application.

5) Share a Container and automatically everything on it: A nice functionality would be that the app would allow us to share a "Container" this would mean that a certain path is shared, and then if we just place shortcuts to other folders and files these items will be added to be Synced within the Container. A little how Copy.com works but without the centralized online storage. This would be much easier for when there a lot of files and folders to be shared.

6) Auto Push between friends: When two devices establish a trusted relationship it would be great if between them everything could be "pushed" automatically without having to enter manually each sharing key.

7) Wishlist Improvement: The implementation of a Dropbox VoteBox or UserVoice or UserEcho platform so that people could easily support other people´s ideas and order them by most requested, etc. Would be great to gather feedback on what the users want. I understand ZenDesk also offers this type of functionality plus the forums. There is also a nice Theme from AppThemes called Ideas that would allow you to do this at low costs.

8) Cross Encypted Space Sharing with friends: CrashPlan is offering a nice functionality besides the backing up to their cloud. You can actually encrypt your files and store them in a repository of files offered by a friend. This would be something nice to see, and BiTtorent could encrypt totally filenames and content so the other party just "lends" you a part of their hard drive for your backups. Your system could monitor that those backups are still there every X time just for your own sanity.

9) Selective Syncing: When someone shares a big folder with a lot of files to me, I would like to be able to mark check boxes to the files and folders I want to sync and keep updated when they change.

10) Selective Pausing: Ability to pause all transfers with a specific friend/computer.

For now these are some things I can think of, keep up the beautiful work you are doing and please don't start charging for peer to peer syncing. It would be nice to be able to eventually add some online storage or unlimited storage with syncing, logically fully encrypted for a super friendly price like BitCasa is offering (Unlimited for USD 10 a month).

Thanks again!

Fernando

Edited by GreatMarko
Struck-through items are suggestions which now have their own dedicated threads in the Feature Requests forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If file metadata is changed on Mac, the entire file shouldn't have to resync. Change the default application for a file to open in, and you'll find that the entire file (such as a >3GB movie) will have to resync.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.