Talk:File synchronization

message: It seems like there is a lot of back and forth with software link listing going on. One edit there are lots of programs listed, another and the list is shorter. Typically the shorter lists remove all of the commercial programs but leave the open source programs. I think this introduces some bias to the article. Either commercial programs should be included on the lists, or the open source software should be removed as well. Personally I favor having example programs listed and think what is missing is more information about them as seen in the Office suite and Comparison of office suites articles. 216.31.247.114 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program List Discussion 

message: Please elaborate on the following line It can also be used for backup purposes, although it is not ideal for this. Why is it not ideal? What is a better solution?
For example, I am looking for a sync app to keep synchronized copies of digital photos on a USB Flash drive, an SD card, and the hard-disk (and maybe a DVD+RW) so that I have them on dissimilar media. I believe a sync tool would be better for this than a full backup tool. Synetech (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Backup procedures (full plus incremental or differential runs) allow for restoring of multiple versions of a file that have been created over days to years. Synchronizing gives you only one version and also means that if the source file is deleted, at the next sync the copy gets deleted also. rossnixon 09:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Ideal For Backup? 

message: Anybody know which software is the best (typically)?
see my review at http://www.tomkelsey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/projects/synchronizer_review.html Plastic rat 10:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: @Plastic rat Felishali (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Best Software

message: I have reviewed a commercial piece of software on my website. I tried to link directly myself on article page, but Feezo believes it's a conflict of interest unless others support that content. That seems reasonable to me, so I'd like to inquire if this article seems worth citing as an external reference:
| File Sync Review article
I have not made and do not intend to make any money on this article. I do not advertise or otherwise profit from my website. It is a purely informational destination. Thanks for any comments on this. Stevemidgley (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unuseful review. Features are the one expected from a synchronization tool. No comparison to other softwares. Looks like your first synchronization tool ever. Still sounding like a commercial ad. Lacrymocéphale 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Software Reviews 

message: Shouldn't this be included in the software list? 69.95.237.77 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Offline Folders 

message: Data synchronization gives a more mathematical description of issues quite similar to the ones discussed here. Classical geographer (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree ... file synchronization is a specific case of data synchronization (for ordered data).  If there is a merge, the file synchronization topic should be merged into the ordered synchronization of the data synchronization topic. User:Trachten 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there will need to be some restructuring: data sync is currently theoretically-oriented, and file sync is practical, primarily software-based. Right now I would suggest beginning with preliminary work restructuring file sync: maybe bringing 'related tools' under 'programs' and doing a section merge from 'features' to data sync. That will make file sync mainly about software. Then with some preparation in data sync, the intros could be merged across, then bringing over the software content under a suitable heading (like 'programs for file sync'), also discussing or referencing it in 'ordered data' within 'theoretical models'. That should be more organised, and not breaking the theoretical/practical coherence. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This merge appears to never have been completed, do we still want to issue this merge? Please respond with Agree or Oppose, your feedback is welcomed. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Should these really come under synchronization, even if they are capable of it? It seems that they are more appropriate for List of online backup services. Note that SpiderOak is already listed there. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if it does file sync, then yes, it should be listed in this article. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online storage services 

message: Dont suppose anyone can write bots? We could use one for keeping external links out of the lists. We could allow for automatic false positive corrections too of course. Opinion on drafting a bot request...? Wikiphile1603 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: References are fine so it's hard to check whether something is citation or a bad url without human intervention. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam links reversion bot 

message: As we all know, the current policy—dictated by the warning message, thus far remaining an uncompromised part of the article—is not to link externally. While not expressly against the policy, the referencing-but-not-linking option was not considered when the policy was established (I think 'redlink' is quite clearly against it though, to be honest). Making exceptions for references and redlinks I do not think is showing promise as a constructive option. I see the page getting cluttered again very soon at this rate. The recent edits have already started to become awkard to clean. While I have read the above discussion and see that the policy itself is not always ideal either, I personally would opt to say that these options are not in the spirit of the original policy, and not constructive for the article as a whole. Opinions?... (it might be useful to be clear if in support or opposition to this new idea of referencing or redlinking). Thanks. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe redlinks could be regarded as a temporary solution - giving somebody, who uses the tools in question a lot, the chance to write an article on them. E.g. Pizzaman could write an article on SuperFlexible, which definitely is worth having its own article. Unfortunately, I've only briefly tested it so far, hence I am not qualified to do that job. But someone who does use it a lot, could. Is it possible to "tag" redlinks with a timestamp? So, after a certain number of weeks without article, the person who put them in would get reminded to write an article, and if he/she doesn't, the link would be removed after another number of weeks. I don't know whether such a system is technically possible in wiki, though.Spitfire ch (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot would definately be required, but there's no reason why a bot could not be developed for this... apart from lack of bot-making resources. To justify the development, it would probably have to be deemed useful for fairly general use. Personally I think it would be a potentially good idea in principle, if redlinks were allowed here, but this page is specifically vulnerable to clutter from non-notable programs. Also, even if it were appropriate here, it would probably take some effort to push through development, and may be deemed over-complicated activity for its use anyway. You may notice from an earlier topic in here that I am interested in getting a bot developed for link quality control. This kind of thing could be one aspect of a larger, more general function... in theory... But for now, it would have to be overseen manually, and I think it may get increasingly difficult. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but could you verify if i understand you correctly, Wikiphile1603? Do you mean that both redlinks and links to external references are not preferable in lists in wikipedia, and preferentially an article should be created for each item in the list? Also, i don't understand why the article still has the warning that it needs references, if all mentioned software has it's own wiki article with references, since i created  Allway Sync‎ and SuperFlexible file synchronizer‎ (and Delta copying in the process). I invite everyone to improve these articles, especially the stub on delta copying is currently very short, so i hope it won't get deleted. PizzaMan (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh and if anybody feels like it, both reviews on Tom's (see references) contain even more file synchronization software, that deserve their own page and mention in this list. PizzaMan (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx for creating these articles, Pizza!Spitfire ch (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The policy here is specific to this article, implemented through the persisting warning (but in the spirit of WP of course - an application of WP principles to this individual article). IMO redlinks are not really appropriate here (same goes for referenced but unlinked items). External links are definately not (clear in warning). What we need is people like yourself making articles! Wikiphile1603 (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on list entries 

message: Is there any reason why rsync is not listed?  It is quite ubiquitous in the *nix world.  --droy (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: rsync

message: About the Proprietary program list: i would like to propose to make "supported os" a singe column, and add some important features, like if it includes scheduled synchronization and supported file systems/connections (FAT, FTP, Amazon S3 and such). I added the "porpagates deletions" column already, because this is, imho, a fundamental difference (to propagate deletions, a program has to keep a database of the files). PizzaMan (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing "Operating System" as one column, although it may seem like a good idea, it means less functionality for the sort options of the table. Everything can have scheduled synchronization using functions native to your OS. The "supported file systems/connections" are listed as "Protocols" in the 'open source' table, which I think is more appropriate, again less sortable. I'm not sure "Propagates deletions" is that important, perhaps "Conflict detection" would be more more important? --Hm2k (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly does conflict detection mean to you? Is it necessary for conflict detection to keep a database of all the files? PizzaMan (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the very same note what exactly does "Propagates deletions" mean to you? Is it necessary for propagates deletions to keep a database of all the files? I felt "conflict detection" was a broader term for what you were trying to describe. --Hm2k (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Neither term is really self-explanatory. Personally, "propagates deletions" was preety clear to me. Maybe the solution is to explain in the article what it means? I guess is uses a database, but I don't get the point. --LQST (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Another column of potential interest could be addressed to the ability of a program to synchronize two computers via USB-stick of limited size. Basically, the ability to only store a list of files on the source and target computer as well as the files that are missing on the target. Since synchronizing two computers with such software seems to be a common scenario, such a feature is not without interest. Examples: SyncToy, the package feature in Synchronize It!, the snapshot feature in Beyond Compare. Don't know a good name for such a column, though ... portable synchronization, maybe? Not quite right ... --Spitfire ch (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it is interesting. If these programs do it, it should be in the article.  --LQST (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: extra columns

message: Is there any reason why Beyond Compare is not in the commercial software comparison table? If it's lack of information, maybe I could help with that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leosdad (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Beyond Compare in comparison table 

message: is there a reason why iFolder is not listed? --Nils Jansen (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  iFolder missing? 

message: I don't know most of the programs listed here. But i really doubt that most of the commercial programs have their own on-line backup service. Perhaps we should even blank out that row in the commercial table and start from scratch. Or just remove it if it's that confusing. PizzaMan (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-line backup service 

message: Isn't it a PrimaAprilis joke that in the list of OpenSource synchronisers there are 14 new (all released v1.0 on 01.04) projects?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.53.121.138 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 (!) C# GPL synchronizers from 01.04.2010 

message: I have suggested that the Software section be split to Comparison of File synchronization software. I am likely to do this later today or tomorrow. This will allow for better maintenance. --Hm2k (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Software 

message: One-way sync is also in order to keep the two locations the same. The distinctive feature of two-way is that you can change a file in either place and your changes will be reflected in the other place. Both one-way and two-way syncing aim at identicality between host-versions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.199.141 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: In two-way file synchronization, updated files are copied in both directions, usually with the purpose of keeping the two locations identical to each other.