3 ms·

Can anyone take a crack at why the hell you need a company and its computer farm 3000 miles away to merey sync your calendar, CalDav or whatever it is between t

Can anyone take a crack at why the hell you need a company and its computer farm 3000 miles away to merey sync your calendar, CalDav or whatever it is between two devices that are oerfectly capable of taking to each other or with a local-first mediating process or tool? I don't get what is about syncing things (particularly the basics like Contacts, Calendar/Reminders that requires you to send the data thousands of miles away and back when its all in the same room

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ihaveajob 3y ago
Put simply: There's no incentive for most organizations to implement this like this.
bombcar 3y ago
Because it's simpler for them to develop, because they make the server the source of truth, and then they can sell it to you. And for most people, it works fine, but when you hit edge cases you're dead in the water.
crazygringo 3y ago
Here's the answer: because it's not written for just 2 devices. It's written to sync however many devices you want -- 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever. Both your phones, your tablet, your laptop, and your watch. And it has to sync when your devices might never actually be turned on at the same time. And you want it to sync when you're traveling, and you don't want to open your home firewall for security reasons. So it requires a single, centralized, always-on server as the source of truth. And given the speed of light, whether that server is 3 miles or 3,000 miles away is largely irrelevant. And writing additional code to sync directly when devices are on the same LAN and turned on at the same time, as a special case, is not only entirely redundant -- but you still have to sync with the server, since you generally want the information backed up as well in case you lose your devices, or they're stolen, or damaged. Using your examples of Contacts and Calendar, those are often some of the most important things in someone's life to keep synced remotely. Does that answer your question?
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  I just feel like there's a middle ground like Resilio Sync where you have to share in ensuring you're syncing things but it can technically do the deed for you. You can even set an automation after you edit your calendar to trigger automatic/manual syncing. I feel like middle grounds like this or EteSync should be more predominant. I would mind that since its local and I prefer to not be dependant on external hosting services wherever I can have a more accountable and static solution a little closer to home
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    But almost nobody wants that middle ground. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. I, and everyone I know, wants something that always works, all the time, no matter where they are, that they never have to think about. Not something that they "have to share in ensuring", not something they need to "set an automation". For almost everyone, external hosting services are a feature rather than a dependency, because homes are subject to fires and natural disasters. And nobody wants to deal with finding a friend across town who will host your backup NAS that you'll set up and periodically maintain. There's just no market for it from any major consumer company.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ihaveajob 3y ago

Put simply: There's no incentive for most organizations to implement this like this.

bombcar 3y ago

Because it's simpler for them to develop, because they make the server the source of truth, and then they can sell it to you. And for most people, it works fine, but when you hit edge cases you're dead in the water.

crazygringo 3y ago

Here's the answer: because it's not written for just 2 devices. It's written to sync however many devices you want -- 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever. Both your phones, your tablet, your laptop, and your watch. And it has to sync when your devices might never actually be turned on at the same time. And you want it to sync when you're traveling, and you don't want to open your home firewall for security reasons. So it requires a single, centralized, always-on server as the source of truth. And given the speed of light, whether that server is 3 miles or 3,000 miles away is largely irrelevant. And writing additional code to sync directly when devices are on the same LAN and turned on at the same time, as a special case, is not only entirely redundant -- but you still have to sync with the server, since you generally want the information backed up as well in case you lose your devices, or they're stolen, or damaged. Using your examples of Contacts and Calendar, those are often some of the most important things in someone's life to keep synced remotely. Does that answer your question?

Obscurity4340 3y ago
I just feel like there's a middle ground like Resilio Sync where you have to share in ensuring you're syncing things but it can technically do the deed for you. You can even set an automation after you edit your calendar to trigger automatic/manual syncing. I feel like middle grounds like this or EteSync should be more predominant. I would mind that since its local and I prefer to not be dependant on external hosting services wherever I can have a more accountable and static solution a little closer to home
- crazygringo 3y ago
  But almost nobody wants that middle ground. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. I, and everyone I know, wants something that always works, all the time, no matter where they are, that they never have to think about. Not something that they "have to share in ensuring", not something they need to "set an automation". For almost everyone, external hosting services are a feature rather than a dependency, because homes are subject to fires and natural disasters. And nobody wants to deal with finding a friend across town who will host your backup NAS that you'll set up and periodically maintain. There's just no market for it from any major consumer company.