
Sync 2.0: Skip the Cloud, Share Direct - shin_lao
http://blog.bittorrent.com/2015/03/03/sync-2-0-skip-the-cloud-share-direct/
======
aw3c2
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.

~~~
higherpurpose
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.

~~~
hobarrera
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).

------
cryptophreak
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.

------
danudey
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).

------
unsignedint
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
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
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.

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

~~~
api
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
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.

------
bazookajoes
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/)

------
webwanderings
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.

------
nickik
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
git-annex assistant might be perfect for your usecase.

~~~
johntash
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/)

------
newman314
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
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
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
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.

~~~
newman314
Re: b)

I want to be able to hide the folder at least. For example, with 1.4, I was
able to define shares between different sets of machines/devices.

Now, as I mentioned, all folders are visible, which is not ideal.

d) Here's a use case:

I connect a iOS device to a VM running BTSync. Folder shows up on VM as "<iOS
device> Camera Backup" on a local filesystem.

I can't easily switch this to point to a network folder (over CIFS) with a
name of <iOS device>

Worse, "<iOS device> Camera Backup" shows up on all machines with no easy way
to rename. This is not good UX. Consider enabling functionality to switch
names/locations in both BTSync UI and in Explorer/Finder.

~~~
laurenBT
B) Sorry, we don't have the ability to hide folders. If you add it to Sync,
it'll be visible to you on all your devices.

D) There are a couple approaches here:

—> You can rename the folder - double click in the Sync folder list and it
will show you the folder it Syncing. If you rename the folder, it will be
renamed in Sync.

—> You can move the folder — double click in the Sync folder list and it will
show you the folder it is Syncing. If you grab the folder and drag and drop it
- you can move it to anywhere in the file system.

You can manually rename Camera Backup on your device, but we keep the "Camera
Backup" name as it's often requested by name by our users.

~~~
newman314
PSA: If converting a folder from 1.4 to 2.0, make sure you first disassociate
the folder from ALL machines.

I updated a machine that is usually off to 2.0 today, several days after
updating other machines (total 6 devices) and the straggler promptly recreated
the 1.4 folder on all the other machines. Now I have to go through and do
cleanup.

Let me be clear: THIS IS HORRIBLE UX.

Dropbox is much better at the UX up to this point but I don't trust/need a
copy in the cloud. But BT, please do not delude yourselves in thinking the
current iteration or anything leading up to this point has been a good user
experience. I've had to on multiple occasions needed to do cleanup on
different machines because of this automagical behavior. Automagic is all fun
and games until it does something unexpected. I'm much more in favor of
predictable, repeatable behavior, particularly in an app like this.

Also, there does not seem to be a way to reset the identity.

------
danieldk
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.

~~~
newman314
FWIW, I disable DHT, tracker and relay server. So the config is LAN only
discovery or direct named host.

------
steeve
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.

------
uptown
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
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.

