Talk:File synchronization

Program List Discussion

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)

I think an article about file synchronization without links to software (commercial/open source/free) is not very useful.

See Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link. Point 4 is relevant "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". So any relevant notable program web site should be linked.

Having mostly Open Source or other programs isn't 'bias', if the most notable programs are Open Source. Most spam will come from commercial sites, which might be why people are more keen to remove these links. Plastic rat

@Plastic rat: How would you define "notable" file synchronization programs? Do you have any usage/download stats that show that the open source programs listed are more popular or in higher regard than commercial software titles? Personally I work for Siber Systems makers of GoodSync and think that its exclusion from this list is an oversight. The same can be said of other prominent commercial titles. RF Simon —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

@Plastic rat: To start with, Plastic rat's definition of "notable" file sync programs is not relevant to the mass: what's notable to you is not necessarily notable to other people, you don't have any objective proof supporting your claim that these open-source programs are more "notable", and your definition of "notable" isn't even clear. System administrators and computer geeks are only a fraction of the people that use file synchronization software. The mass don't use command line or ugly looking programs, thus the need for nice looking GUI's that simply do the work, like Microsoft's SyncToy. Discrimination of software because of their source availability is a problem You have: people here are looking for a file sync program that works, whether if it's Open-Source or Closed-Source. Wrap around your head that this article is about File Synchronization software, and Not "Plastic rat's vision of notable file synchronization software". Stop trimming information because of your vision of "notable" programs, closed-source applications belong to this list as much as Open-Source software do. Cheers. Wadih7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadih7 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stale

@Wadih7: Apologies for the late reply - I very rarely look at wikipedia.

The 'notability' test is wikipedias not mine, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability.

I have not deleted any external links.

I have not discriminated against closed source software.

HTH Plastic rat (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Ideal For Backup?

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)

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)

Best Software

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)

@Plastic rat Felishali (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

btw feel free to copy anything from the above page, it has a list of typical features of syncing programs Plastic rat 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

a little late but that is a great review even two years after, thank you 128.122.24.15 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Software Reviews

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)

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)

Windows Offline Folders

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

How about Windows' concept of the "briefcase"? Naptastic 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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)

I would say merge to Data synchronization, simply because of the more general name: it can encompass file synchronisation, but not so suitable the other way round. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Having began the pre-merger cleanup, I think I have changed my opinion on the full merger. Now I think that it would be more appropriate to use data sync as a central point, practical and theoretical, for introducing and referencing more specific types of syncronisation, combined with generalised discussion. See the Relation with other data synchronization tools section. I think that the section merge is more appropriate, with perhaps some other selective merging from other parts if suitable. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done the section merger, and related cleanup. The only other section that I think may be appropriate is that some of 'Common features' could be copied accross for reference in both articles (if considered worthwhile). Wikiphile1603 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Agree --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Online storage services

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)

I guess if it does file sync, then yes, it should be listed in this article. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam links reversion bot

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)

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)

SuperFlexible and Allway Sync

I've been testing and using many file synchronization apps, including most mentioned on this list and these stand out. They're two of the few smart ones that can also synchronize deletions. SuperFlexible even understands if a folder is moved. I'm under the impression that others also find these two of the best file synchronizers, at least on dutch forums (tweakers). Yet when i added them to the list, they were promptly removed. Is it because they don't even have their own page in wikipedia? Is that because creating the page could be seen as advertising? But what's the purpose of such a list if two of the best progs aren't on it? Please discuss here before removing them again. PizzaMan (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a guideline for that, but IMO any item in a software list should have an associated article, unless the app is obviously notable (like XML Notepad in List of XML editors). Otherwise, the list quickly becomes a place where anybody can insert their own spam; while if an article is created, it allows us to check whether the app is notable or not. Laurent (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Hm2k (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So, i found a very useful review article about many file synchronization programs. Hope this will be considered sufficient source, together with the homepages of the publishers. I'm reluctant to create an article, because the last time i created such an article it was seen as advertising and rapidly removed. PizzaMan (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You should try again. Armed with reliable sources for notability you may stand more of a chance of creating an article that won't get removed. Try and avoid listing it's features, and instead describe the software. From experience this seems to avoid being marked as spam. Good luck. --Hm2k (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also made that experience. Interestingly, there seems to be a great likelihood that an article about a small piece of software - such as a synchronization tool - is considered spam. Although, and this is my personal opinion, an article about file synchronization should offer a list of most available tools. If the articles to these tools clearly show what features they support, it's very easy to compare the different tools and decide, which is the best for ones needs. But well, opinions seem to differ a lot, and obviously it's preferred to show a random selection of tools and remove most of the new entries right away. I also invested like 2 - 3 hours writing an article about my synchronization tool of choice (no connection with the developer, so it was not advertising) only to see it marked as spam a couple of minutes later and killed another couple of minutes later (my arguments against deletion being ignored, no further discussion). Under this circumstances, it's not really motivating to contribute new articles. I do understand that Wikipedia should not become a collection of spam and advertising, but as it is now, almost everything is considered spam, which prevents Wikipedia to be a source of information as complete as possible. Spitfire ch (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to start small. Redlink to the article and provide a reference to a reliable source. Once you have a number of Wikipedia articles redlinking, create the article. Providing you have reliable sources, there's no reason the article should be removed. Understanding why an article may be deleted is a sure way to ensure your article isn't deleted. Don't give up. :) --Hm2k (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, thx for the advice. If I write an article about a topic in science, sources are easy to find (publications). But what is considered as "reliable source" if you write about a small piece of software? Would that be reviews/previews on a known website? And is it ok to try to publish an article again, after it has been removed, or do you risk being banned by that? Spitfire ch (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's an independent review (i.e. not written by the software developer) on a reasonably well known website, it should be fine, just make sure to avoid blogs or other self-published sources. It's ok to recreate an article that has been deleted - the article may be deleted again though, but you definitely won't be blocked. Which sources are you planning to use? Laurent (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Laurent! Since you tagged the article as spam last time, you are the most qualified person to tell me how to change it to avoid deletion again :) I was thinking of the following reviews (the last one only containing customer reviews but on a popular site):

http://cws.internet.com/article/2729-3988.htm

http://www.softsea.com/review/Synchronize-It.html

http://download.cnet.com/Synchronize-It/3000-2248_4-10045786.html

I know, it's not a huge, famous tool, but hey, hardly any synchronization tool is. It's doing a great job for me and other customers since many years, so I thought it has deserved a place among the other tools mentioned here. I am not linked with the developer in any way, so it's not advertisement! P.S. Maybe we should move this discussion somewhere else, since it's no longer specific for SuperFlexible and the lines are getting shorter and shorter! Best regards

If I may further add my opinion on SuperFlexible: It's one of the very few tools capable of intelligently recognizing renamed and moved folders. In that prospect, it's nearly unique and hence definitely deserves an article in WikiPedia. Spitfire ch (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Softsea and CNET reviews have both been written by the publisher so none of them are good, and we can't use users' comments as sources. The WinPlanet source however looks good to me. Laurent (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking into this. I'll give it another shot with the WinPlanet source, then. Where have you seen that it was the developer who has written the Softsea review (and rated it)? For my future choice of reviews it would be useful to be able to distinguish between real reviews and fake reviews. Thank you very muchSpitfire ch (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me on that, spitfire. Allway sync is another (the other?) program which can do that, so that's why i emphasized these programs... Laurent: would one source (like the softsea article or the Tom's guide articles i added be sufficient to start a stub? PizzaMan (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work fellas, I'm please to see the article being improved. My advice would be to use an article from the following news link as they are generally reliable sources (apart from the user comments on forums or blogs).

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Once you have a reliable source, that should be enough to make a stub. Good luck. --Hm2k (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy on list entries

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thx for creating these articles, Pizza!Spitfire ch (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

rsync

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)

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 edit this page 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)

rsync is a mirroring tool. This article only covers 'two-way' syncing. Plastic rat (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

extra columns

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree it is interesting. If these programs do it, it should be in the article. --LQST (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No Beyond Compare in comparison table

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)

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 edit this page 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)

iFolder missing?

is there a reason why iFolder is not listed? --Nils Jansen (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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 edit this page 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)

On-line backup service

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)

14 (!) C# GPL synchronizers from 01.04.2010

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)

Split Software

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)

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.

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)