• 7 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 14th, 2024

help-circle




  • Thank you for your question!

    There are some benefits, among them:

    • syncspirit is faster. According to my measurements it is able to sync linux sources tree folder for 2 mins vs 15 mins of syncing when using syncthing (that’s over a localhost, of course)
    • syncspirit has a different UI. That’s matter of personal taste, of course, but I like to see the exact picture what is synchronized and what is not.
    • syncspirit is able to run on more older software (i.e. from windows xp and up). Syncthing uses golang, and its software support is indirectly controlled by google (i.e. “artificial aging”); recent builds are running only on windows 10 and windows 11. Microsoft already dropped windows 10 support, so, I expect that in near future google will do the same.
    • the long-term goal of syncspirit is to allow “selective sync” feature, which unlikely to be implemented by syncthing.

    wbr, basiliscos











  • That tools does what I always think was possible to do, or am I missing something?

    I think the problem is that they do not share the whole communication protocol/model with GUI/client and it has only feature to block something aposteriory masks, while the whole folder with all files is already shared with client’s device. The original syncthing database scheme also seems does not supporting this.

    Technically, from a protocol view level, there is no problem just to ask a single file to download and share only it.