6 ms·

Sync 2.0: Skip the Cloud, Share Direct

87 points by shin_lao 12y ago

aw3c2 12y ago
I would love to try it but it is proprietary and closed-source. So far I am very happy with Syncthing, mostly missing public shares.
- benoliver999 12y ago
  Agreed. I keep BTSync running but syncthing is the place to be. Public shares would be great. I know someone who distrubutes a podcast via BTSync, it'd be lovely to see that in syncthing.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  I would agree, but I find Sync's interface so much easier to use (and to explain to others). I hope the SyncThing guys keep working on that. I also don't want a command prompt window to stay open while I'm using the app...Syncthing still feels too developer-centric rather than consumer-centric to me.
  - bjpirt 12y ago
    This might be of interest for getting rid of that command prompt window: https://discourse.syncthing.net/t/keeping-syncthing-running-mac-os-x-launchdaemon/407 https://discourse.syncthing.net/t/keeping-syncthing-running-...
  - hobarrera 12y ago
    I don't see any prompt when running syncthing. You're probably running it manually (eg: typing `syncthing` into a terminal). The package for your OS probably contains something to run it as a daemon (systemd.service / rc.d / launchd / whatever).
- urza 12y ago
  I'll just add the link here for people who dont know Syncthing http://syncthing.net/ http://syncthing.net/
  - _lce0 12y ago
    Thanks for share! I'm tying Syncthing and so far it's been really good experience -- this's what I've found .. - it takes a bunch of configuration to sync a folder phone <-> computer, but nothing too hard. - it polls for changes after X seconds. - on every device, it setups a local web server; opt-out feature not available on mobile - folders have two modes: master/slave -- a change on a master will be push to all slaves; slave will prevent global delete - the mobile app crashes trying to sync via 3g Also, reading the log output, I've seen this .. [RECNG] 18:53:26 INFO: Starting global discovery announcements I'm aware that could be disabled --that's not the point-- but I wonder what information those publish, how are transferred, and more importantly, where are posted?
- newman314 12y ago
  AFAIK, syncthing still does not support the use case of shared 1Password. https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/220 https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/220 BTSync seems to be handling this for now.
  - urda 12y ago
    Oh god that's a pretty serious issue. I was really excited about checking it out too, I'll wait.
- patcon 12y ago
  I held out for the longest time on those grounds, and then finally tried it and it blew me away so much that I've compromised for this one tool
spiritplumber 12y ago
Every few years it's "Do it on a central server!" "No, do it localized!"
- api 12y ago
  This is one of the familiar "cycles of reincarnation" in software: main frame vs. local PC. First there was the main frame, with the "PC" being a dumb terminal used to access it. Then came the PC revolution, which put everything on the desk in front of you. Next came the cloud revolution, which is really main frame 2.0 with the PC (and mobile devices) demoted to dumb terminals with better UIs. Now we're seeing a renewed movement back toward personal local computing and distributed decentralized networks, and around and around we go...
  - lexandstuff 12y ago
    Paperspace, offering an extreme version of the dumb terminal paradigm, is currently on the front page of Hacker News and Product Hunt, so it's kinda difficult to tell exactly what phase of the cycle we're in.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- danudey 12y ago
  BTSync 2.0 lets you host it on your own local server, but still pay a corporate entity for all the features you want. Best of both worlds!
danieldk 12y ago
The thing that I miss most is a good story for the cloud part. As it is, you have to keep one peer that is always on for convenience (we use a Raspberry Pi). But it would be nicer if a reputable company (rather than a random person in their forums) would offer a permanent peer. This can be done without sacrificing privacy using a so-called 'encrypted read-only secret', which can be derived from the secret and gives the peer the possibility to sync data only in encrypted form.
- adrusi 12y ago
  It doesn't need to be a company (centralized organization). It could just as well be a band of peers that are individually unreliable but as a collective, with all their redundancy, are reliable. You know, like bittorrent.
- newman314 12y ago
  FWIW, I disable DHT, tracker and relay server. So the config is LAN only discovery or direct named host.
cryptophreak 12y ago
I feel that “Skip the Cloud” is misleading in that they still want us to rent the software. For me, half the point is being able to pay my money and walk away completely.
newman314 12y ago
Has anyone found a document discussing how to upgrade from 1.4.x to 2.x yet? It looks like the 1.4.x era folders are now tagged as "Classic" and has a difference in capability.
- laurenBT 12y ago
  Hi there, I'm Lauren from BitTorrent. Hope this explanation helps! When you upgrade to 2.0, all 1.4 folders will still exist. You can continue to sync your 1.4 folder with both 1.4 and 2.0 builds of Sync. The only difference is that your 1.4 folders will not gain any of the new 2.0 functionality like permissions changes and syncing on-demand.
  - newman314 12y ago
    Ugh. I'm really regretting upgrading right now. a) There is no functionality to "upgrade" a folder from 1.4 to 2.0 b) Sync 2.0 completely clutters the namespace. I don't necessarily want all "sync'ed" folders to show up on all machines. c) I used to be able to define where Camera Backup from an iOS device went. Now it forcibly makes me use "<devicename> Camera Backup" d) The ability to dynamically change "sync'ed" folder names as well as folder paths still does not exist.
    - laurenBT 12y ago
      Sorry you're having trouble -- I hope this sheds some light on your issues and how everything works with Sync 2.0 a) 1.4 and 2.0 folders are different cryptographically. They are not mathematically compatible, so one can not be changed in any way to be another (and by the way 2.0 folders can not be turned into 1.4 folders either). 1.4 folders can just be disconnected and reconnected to become 2.0. b) Through the MyDevices, linkages you are able to access all of the information you have added to any of your instances of Sync. This is a major user benefit - you no longer have to hunt down the originating machine to get your data. In order to remove a folder from this device, click on Folder Options > Disconnect and Disconnect from this copy of Sync. c) Your devices are all named by you during install - you are able to change the device name in Preferences. You are now able to choose where your iOS backups are able to go from within the iOS app. Click on Camera Backup > Device List — which allows you to backup your iPhone to your computer and your NAS at the same time. d) The application is constantly watching your file system for changes you make. If you want to change the name of a folder in Sync, change it in Windows Explorer or Finder, and in Sync it will be changed. The folders also follow your changes, move the folder where you want it to go, and Sync will follow your movements automatically. We feel that this is the best user experience as they are already familiar with moving folders and renaming folders in this manner.
uptown 12y ago
Great that there's an API, but I'm trying to think of the best way to use this in a product. You've got to get anybody on the receiving end of data to install Sync 2.0. I wish there was a way for them to offer it as a library that could be integrated into distributed software more-seamlessly to the end-user.
- andrewstuart2 12y ago
  I could be missing something but I think this problem (sharing) fundamentally either requires some sort of non-standard software installed or some centralized solution that can utilize standard software (for example, a web-based solution). But then it's no longer decentralized.
unsignedint 12y ago
I have been using it since 1.3 (I believe) and I used to be a big fan of it. I think BTSync's strength was that it was fairly simple, somewhat more simple type of system where you could just share key and start syncing; no account creation required. Now it seems to be departed into more with a strong push to identify based access control and such. When they started moving toward that (I've tried their 2.0 beta briefly) I just felt Syncthing is where my usecase belong. (Simply, all I wanted was a solution to move and update files from A to B to C.) It sounds like 2.0 still provides the same functionalities, but in any case, that 10 folder limitation will not work with me anyways. I don't mind paying for what I use, but I just don't think it's a implementation I prefer any more...
- mieses 12y ago
  The new 10 folder limit makes it almost useless and breaks their promise that the new free 2.0 version will provide the same features as 1.4.
  - coffeedrinker 12y ago
    Ten folders puts me at the limit just on my family LAN with each user having their own folder and me having a couple so I can have a smaller set for syncing to laptop and a larger one for desktops. I just installed SyncThing... P.S. I just found out it is written in Go so that is a big plus for me as well.
steeve 12y ago
well... I'm not sure I'm on board with everything on this new version. It seems to be getting in my way more. Perhaps I'll get used to it.
nickik 12y ago
The only thing that is really missing for me is the partial file sync. I have for example a big folder full of podcasts that I all, kind of want on my device but dont have space for. It would be awesome to, in theory, sync my hole NAS on my phone and then only partaly download some folders. At the moment I get around this problem by having a special 'Sync Podcast'-Folder and I just copy files into it. Since my phone is only 64GB its not really that bad, but its still more work then just a click on the device itself. So if there is any way I can get that for free, or only pay for the app. I would be happy.
- aw3c2 12y ago
  git-annex assistant might be perfect for your usecase.
  - nickik 12y ago
    That does sound intresting, thanks for the tip.
  - johntash 12y ago
    Thanks for mentioning git-annex. I had used it before, but never realized it eventually received an android client. Time to try it again and syncthing :) http://git-annex.branchable.com/install/Android/ http://git-annex.branchable.com/install/Android/
webwanderings 12y ago
Not too long ago you guys took a big and extensive survey. The survey had business-speak written all over it. One could sense you're going down that path in the near future; and you have. Me and my two tablets will survive without using this service for syncing. I wish you good luck with the business model.
danudey 12y ago
I'm trying to figure out a better solution for creative workflow management, and BT Sync was on my list before. From my (enterprise) perspective, this is how it seems to be set up: - I get to host, configure, manage, monitor, and script my own infrastructure - I don't get any user management or centralized auth - Users have to create identities manually and then get people to share folders to them But also! - I still have to pay for the features I want, yearly, per-user On top of that, there seems to be a lot of marketing material telling me the high-level overview, and lots of documentation telling me the low-level interface, but I'm not getting the whole picture. I'm sold on the idea, but not the implementation. There's nothing here that tells me, as a devops/IT guy, what this will do for my infrastructure or my users. That said, there are a lot of features here that I love. Turning off 'sync all' and having placeholder files is great for a company which currently has an 80 GB SVN repository of all of our creative assets. There's also no indication of whether I can revoke files from a user (and not just their access to future updates). When an employee/contractor leaves, I want them to stop having any of our files. Granted, they could just make copies before they get disconnected, but it's still a nice-to-have. So, if there's any way to handle these issues (mostly authenticating users against an LDAP backend, in my case), I'm sold, sign me up. Otherwise, I have to go somewhere else (e.g. AeroFS, which can do this).
bazookajoes 12y ago
I really like the Sync UI, the functionality and the speed. But the last time I looked at the forum there were several unanswered posts about serious bugs where files were deleted on both sync peers. This scared me away from using it. Now, I'm not sure if it being out of beta means that these showstoppers have been fixed or just ignored. The stated primary goal of sync is that your files will always stay private. I wish the primary goal was that my files were not deleted. Since it's closed source perhaps they could do better by documenting their testing strategy and coverage to convince potential users of the quality of their software. It also scares me that bug reports are managed on a forum rather than through a bugtracker: http://forum.bittorrent.com/forum/108-sync-troubleshooting/ http://forum.bittorrent.com/forum/108-sync-troubleshooting/

87 points by shin_lao 12y ago

aw3c2 12y ago

I would love to try it but it is proprietary and closed-source. So far I am very happy with Syncthing, mostly missing public shares.

benoliver999 12y ago
Agreed. I keep BTSync running but syncthing is the place to be. Public shares would be great. I know someone who distrubutes a podcast via BTSync, it'd be lovely to see that in syncthing.
higherpurpose 12y ago
I would agree, but I find Sync's interface so much easier to use (and to explain to others). I hope the SyncThing guys keep working on that. I also don't want a command prompt window to stay open while I'm using the app...Syncthing still feels too developer-centric rather than consumer-centric to me.
- bjpirt 12y ago
  This might be of interest for getting rid of that command prompt window: https://discourse.syncthing.net/t/keeping-syncthing-running-mac-os-x-launchdaemon/407 https://discourse.syncthing.net/t/keeping-syncthing-running-...
- hobarrera 12y ago
  I don't see any prompt when running syncthing. You're probably running it manually (eg: typing `syncthing` into a terminal). The package for your OS probably contains something to run it as a daemon (systemd.service / rc.d / launchd / whatever).
urza 12y ago
I'll just add the link here for people who dont know Syncthing http://syncthing.net/ http://syncthing.net/
- _lce0 12y ago
  Thanks for share! I'm tying Syncthing and so far it's been really good experience -- this's what I've found .. - it takes a bunch of configuration to sync a folder phone <-> computer, but nothing too hard. - it polls for changes after X seconds. - on every device, it setups a local web server; opt-out feature not available on mobile - folders have two modes: master/slave -- a change on a master will be push to all slaves; slave will prevent global delete - the mobile app crashes trying to sync via 3g Also, reading the log output, I've seen this .. [RECNG] 18:53:26 INFO: Starting global discovery announcements I'm aware that could be disabled --that's not the point-- but I wonder what information those publish, how are transferred, and more importantly, where are posted?
newman314 12y ago
AFAIK, syncthing still does not support the use case of shared 1Password. https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/220 https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/220 BTSync seems to be handling this for now.
- urda 12y ago
  Oh god that's a pretty serious issue. I was really excited about checking it out too, I'll wait.
patcon 12y ago
I held out for the longest time on those grounds, and then finally tried it and it blew me away so much that I've compromised for this one tool

spiritplumber 12y ago

Every few years it's "Do it on a central server!" "No, do it localized!"

api 12y ago
This is one of the familiar "cycles of reincarnation" in software: main frame vs. local PC. First there was the main frame, with the "PC" being a dumb terminal used to access it. Then came the PC revolution, which put everything on the desk in front of you. Next came the cloud revolution, which is really main frame 2.0 with the PC (and mobile devices) demoted to dumb terminals with better UIs. Now we're seeing a renewed movement back toward personal local computing and distributed decentralized networks, and around and around we go...
- lexandstuff 12y ago
  Paperspace, offering an extreme version of the dumb terminal paradigm, is currently on the front page of Hacker News and Product Hunt, so it's kinda difficult to tell exactly what phase of the cycle we're in.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
danudey 12y ago
BTSync 2.0 lets you host it on your own local server, but still pay a corporate entity for all the features you want. Best of both worlds!

danieldk 12y ago

The thing that I miss most is a good story for the cloud part. As it is, you have to keep one peer that is always on for convenience (we use a Raspberry Pi). But it would be nicer if a reputable company (rather than a random person in their forums) would offer a permanent peer. This can be done without sacrificing privacy using a so-called 'encrypted read-only secret', which can be derived from the secret and gives the peer the possibility to sync data only in encrypted form.

adrusi 12y ago
It doesn't need to be a company (centralized organization). It could just as well be a band of peers that are individually unreliable but as a collective, with all their redundancy, are reliable. You know, like bittorrent.
newman314 12y ago
FWIW, I disable DHT, tracker and relay server. So the config is LAN only discovery or direct named host.

cryptophreak 12y ago

I feel that “Skip the Cloud” is misleading in that they still want us to rent the software. For me, half the point is being able to pay my money and walk away completely.

newman314 12y ago

Has anyone found a document discussing how to upgrade from 1.4.x to 2.x yet? It looks like the 1.4.x era folders are now tagged as "Classic" and has a difference in capability.

laurenBT 12y ago
Hi there, I'm Lauren from BitTorrent. Hope this explanation helps! When you upgrade to 2.0, all 1.4 folders will still exist. You can continue to sync your 1.4 folder with both 1.4 and 2.0 builds of Sync. The only difference is that your 1.4 folders will not gain any of the new 2.0 functionality like permissions changes and syncing on-demand.
- newman314 12y ago
  Ugh. I'm really regretting upgrading right now. a) There is no functionality to "upgrade" a folder from 1.4 to 2.0 b) Sync 2.0 completely clutters the namespace. I don't necessarily want all "sync'ed" folders to show up on all machines. c) I used to be able to define where Camera Backup from an iOS device went. Now it forcibly makes me use "<devicename> Camera Backup" d) The ability to dynamically change "sync'ed" folder names as well as folder paths still does not exist.
  - laurenBT 12y ago
    Sorry you're having trouble -- I hope this sheds some light on your issues and how everything works with Sync 2.0 a) 1.4 and 2.0 folders are different cryptographically. They are not mathematically compatible, so one can not be changed in any way to be another (and by the way 2.0 folders can not be turned into 1.4 folders either). 1.4 folders can just be disconnected and reconnected to become 2.0. b) Through the MyDevices, linkages you are able to access all of the information you have added to any of your instances of Sync. This is a major user benefit - you no longer have to hunt down the originating machine to get your data. In order to remove a folder from this device, click on Folder Options > Disconnect and Disconnect from this copy of Sync. c) Your devices are all named by you during install - you are able to change the device name in Preferences. You are now able to choose where your iOS backups are able to go from within the iOS app. Click on Camera Backup > Device List — which allows you to backup your iPhone to your computer and your NAS at the same time. d) The application is constantly watching your file system for changes you make. If you want to change the name of a folder in Sync, change it in Windows Explorer or Finder, and in Sync it will be changed. The folders also follow your changes, move the folder where you want it to go, and Sync will follow your movements automatically. We feel that this is the best user experience as they are already familiar with moving folders and renaming folders in this manner.

uptown 12y ago

Great that there's an API, but I'm trying to think of the best way to use this in a product. You've got to get anybody on the receiving end of data to install Sync 2.0. I wish there was a way for them to offer it as a library that could be integrated into distributed software more-seamlessly to the end-user.

andrewstuart2 12y ago
I could be missing something but I think this problem (sharing) fundamentally either requires some sort of non-standard software installed or some centralized solution that can utilize standard software (for example, a web-based solution). But then it's no longer decentralized.

unsignedint 12y ago

I have been using it since 1.3 (I believe) and I used to be a big fan of it. I think BTSync's strength was that it was fairly simple, somewhat more simple type of system where you could just share key and start syncing; no account creation required. Now it seems to be departed into more with a strong push to identify based access control and such. When they started moving toward that (I've tried their 2.0 beta briefly) I just felt Syncthing is where my usecase belong. (Simply, all I wanted was a solution to move and update files from A to B to C.) It sounds like 2.0 still provides the same functionalities, but in any case, that 10 folder limitation will not work with me anyways. I don't mind paying for what I use, but I just don't think it's a implementation I prefer any more...

mieses 12y ago
The new 10 folder limit makes it almost useless and breaks their promise that the new free 2.0 version will provide the same features as 1.4.
- coffeedrinker 12y ago
  Ten folders puts me at the limit just on my family LAN with each user having their own folder and me having a couple so I can have a smaller set for syncing to laptop and a larger one for desktops. I just installed SyncThing... P.S. I just found out it is written in Go so that is a big plus for me as well.

steeve 12y ago

well... I'm not sure I'm on board with everything on this new version. It seems to be getting in my way more. Perhaps I'll get used to it.

nickik 12y ago

The only thing that is really missing for me is the partial file sync. I have for example a big folder full of podcasts that I all, kind of want on my device but dont have space for. It would be awesome to, in theory, sync my hole NAS on my phone and then only partaly download some folders. At the moment I get around this problem by having a special 'Sync Podcast'-Folder and I just copy files into it. Since my phone is only 64GB its not really that bad, but its still more work then just a click on the device itself. So if there is any way I can get that for free, or only pay for the app. I would be happy.

aw3c2 12y ago
git-annex assistant might be perfect for your usecase.
- nickik 12y ago
  That does sound intresting, thanks for the tip.
- johntash 12y ago
  Thanks for mentioning git-annex. I had used it before, but never realized it eventually received an android client. Time to try it again and syncthing :) http://git-annex.branchable.com/install/Android/ http://git-annex.branchable.com/install/Android/

webwanderings 12y ago

Not too long ago you guys took a big and extensive survey. The survey had business-speak written all over it. One could sense you're going down that path in the near future; and you have. Me and my two tablets will survive without using this service for syncing. I wish you good luck with the business model.

danudey 12y ago

I'm trying to figure out a better solution for creative workflow management, and BT Sync was on my list before. From my (enterprise) perspective, this is how it seems to be set up: - I get to host, configure, manage, monitor, and script my own infrastructure - I don't get any user management or centralized auth - Users have to create identities manually and then get people to share folders to them But also! - I still have to pay for the features I want, yearly, per-user On top of that, there seems to be a lot of marketing material telling me the high-level overview, and lots of documentation telling me the low-level interface, but I'm not getting the whole picture. I'm sold on the idea, but not the implementation. There's nothing here that tells me, as a devops/IT guy, what this will do for my infrastructure or my users. That said, there are a lot of features here that I love. Turning off 'sync all' and having placeholder files is great for a company which currently has an 80 GB SVN repository of all of our creative assets. There's also no indication of whether I can revoke files from a user (and not just their access to future updates). When an employee/contractor leaves, I want them to stop having any of our files. Granted, they could just make copies before they get disconnected, but it's still a nice-to-have. So, if there's any way to handle these issues (mostly authenticating users against an LDAP backend, in my case), I'm sold, sign me up. Otherwise, I have to go somewhere else (e.g. AeroFS, which can do this).

bazookajoes 12y ago

I really like the Sync UI, the functionality and the speed. But the last time I looked at the forum there were several unanswered posts about serious bugs where files were deleted on both sync peers. This scared me away from using it. Now, I'm not sure if it being out of beta means that these showstoppers have been fixed or just ignored. The stated primary goal of sync is that your files will always stay private. I wish the primary goal was that my files were not deleted. Since it's closed source perhaps they could do better by documenting their testing strategy and coverage to convince potential users of the quality of their software. It also scares me that bug reports are managed on a forum rather than through a bugtracker: http://forum.bittorrent.com/forum/108-sync-troubleshooting/ http://forum.bittorrent.com/forum/108-sync-troubleshooting/