Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of file synchronization software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.227.118.86 (talk) at 15:32, 13 August 2014 (→Entries to add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Entries to add

unnecessary "cleanup"

Someone ( Hm2k ) has deleted CleanSync and other items in Revision as of 21:06, 10 May 2010


 :-(

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.191.96 (talk • contribs)

system requirements

It should be useful to list also system requirements of compared software , because it has impact on performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.191.96 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wrong license type

Some items requests license agreements other than listed in the table ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.55.255.41 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three tables?!

I really don't understand this format. Like people only did care about certain features if tool is proprietary. They should be compared altogether, with the Licence as a column.

Having two tables would be useful if we want to split: general information, more important features, less important features.

And a column for "Paid version" is almost a joke. If there is no paid version available, I guess the software has no interest at all. --LQST (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the tables should be combined and its licensing model (open source and which license/closed source/proprietary/freeware/shareware/paid) should be noted. Syzygy84 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing explanation

There are some software not made to work in Linux enviroments. I created a hypothesis: can a Windows laptop access a Linux shared partition (using Samba), and sync it's content, thanks to a Windows aplication that doesn't work in Linux? Can this sort of solution work? Or is it necessary to have the aplication installed in both machines? The answer to this could be put in the reference item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.169.85 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity

Does anyone else find the columns "Windows", "Mac OS X", "Linux", and "Other OS" ambiguous? For example, does it mean the application runs on those operating system platforms, or does it mean it just supports synchronizing with their filesystems?

Also, I don't understand why the commercial comparison chart has columns for both "Prior file versions, revision control" and "Restore replaced/deleted files from old versions." Isn't that the same feature? Even more confusing is that almost every piece of software says it can do revision control, but it also says it *can't* restore old files. I don't understand how that can be... isn't the whole point of revision control to be able to restore older versions?** They're the same thing! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! Jmontee (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update 17 October 2011 **

Reviewing the article history shows user "Alishoki" created this column "Restore replaced/deleted files from old versions." (including a period at the end of the column header), while indicating that only BestSync possessed this feature among all of the software shown. This suggests the intentions of this modification was in the interests of promoting a feature of BestSync. While in itself is perfectly acceptable, I draw upon personal experience with Risefly (author of BestSync) with which they seemed to possess less-than-desirable knowledge/quality control. I suspect this chart modification was performed by them without understanding that a column for the feature they wanted to illustrate already existed ("revision control"), and that it was incorrect to indicate that none of the other software possessed that feature. Additionally, Risefly is based in Osaka, and the username that made these modifications appears Japanese. For the sake of accuracy, I will manually revert these changes back and eliminate the redundant and inaccurate column for "Restore replaced/deleted files from old versions."

Table too wide

Someone on help desk just mentioned that the top table is too wide to view nicely. I am new, so I don't know what the WP policies/guidelines are for this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from the Help Desk post as well. I agree that table is too wide for most computer screens. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables and WP:SPLITLIST seem to indicated that the way to handle this is removing some of the columns, since too much statistical data is against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information policy. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

This article needs to include the definition of "portable" "scheduling" etc. for the top table. What do this terms mean, in this context? Is the data format portable? Or the software cross-platform? The software includes scheduling of batch file operations, or processes? What? 90.193.161.157 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed confusion about "Detect rename, move" when testing (only) DirSync Pro and FreeFileSync for this aspect and corrected the table. So I started the section "Definitions".
UnTrueOrUnSimplified (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good start, but it's only a start. The table still has confusing columns such as "LAN Sync" and "Sync any directory" which can have multiple meanings. -79.177.122.137 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call for user opinions about "Detect rename, move"

I want users opinions about the proposal to integrate the two columns "Detect rename", ".. move" to one with the name "Rename/move synced as such". I assume all programs detect added or deleted files, and with that, renamed and moved files. I see no point in reserving 2 columns for that definition. UnTrueOrUnSimplified (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! OGivi (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a DirSync Pro developers agreement. Thank you, :-). I wait for some more agreements. UnTrueOrUnSimplified (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on merging the two columns and adding notes should a product handle moves differently than renames. Only one product has a different answer for "rename" vs. "move." I disagree on deleting both columns. Your assumption that all programs detect renamed and moved files is not true. For example, I know robocopy does not. If you rename a file and run robocopy again it will copy the file data to the destination under the new name. A product that detects renames/moves would see that the file is already on the destination but under a new name and/or location and just rename and/or move it on the destination. It would not copy the file data over again. Some products keep a "recycle bin" of deleted files and allow a person to delete a file and later to put it back. The product will see that the file data is already in its "recycle bin" and restore it rather than copying the file data. I am puzzled by the remark for iFolder where it says "Yes (files, not folders)." If a product can detect/handle files getting moved then by definition it can handle folders being renamed or moved. The product would simply see this as a bunch of files getting moved. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the two columns are identical along with the preceding conversation, why don't we just merge them? If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll do it. Syzygy84 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remark on "detect rename/move"

None of the open source software listed in the table (with the exception of Unison) has a true file rename/move detectability feature. If a file A was renamed to B, a software with this feature should detect that file B on the first server/folder is file A on the second server/folder. However, most of the listed software can only detect that file A is missing on the first server/folder, and file B is missing on the second server/folder. Therefore, stating that those software has rename/move detectability feature is misleading. I'd advise using a third option – Partial – which mark that the software can only detect if a file is missing, but not if a file was moved. – Fuzzy – 12:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial vs Proprietary

The Commercial software section has the description of "This is a comparison of proprietary software released as commercial." Software can be commercial (sold) while still being open-source, and there's not a section for commercial open source software. I bring this up because "ownCloud" is in the commercial section, but it's open-source. It's actually using a dual-license monetization scheme, so I have no idea what section it should be under. Both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.62.236 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FreeFileSync

FreeFileSync needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.42.93 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was eventually added. -79.177.122.137 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTPbox

FTPbox -- open-source -- should be added, still in beta though. -> link: http://ftpbox.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tielemans.jorim (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_file_synchronization_software&oldid=621074805"