BitTorrent Sync creates private, peer-to-peer Dropbox, no cloud required

No size limits, no cloud: Hands-on with BitTorrent's new file syncing software.

Read the whole story

 

[Haravikk]

To those asking how this differs from rsync; I think the main difference is that the sync can occur from all machines within the network, rather than a single source to a single destination, which is potentially faster, depending upon the network setup. For example, if you trust your friends or family members in different locations, then you could set up a network for one-way sharing, put your stuff in an encrypted sparse disk image and it should be nice and secure.

Another possible difference from rsync is that it seems Bittorrent Sync has some extra features for handling sync conflicts.


But I do agree with most posters that its utility is a bit underwhelming; I don't have anywhere off-site to set up a Bittorrent Sync network for, which is why I use Dropbox for syncing important stuff (my double-encrypted 1Password keychain) and Crashplan for backing up important stuff from my NAS (so it can backup overnight).


I don't think this service is really all that useful otherwise; the advantages for large file transfers are interesting, but otherwise I think that it won't be truly useful unless someone sets up a service for users to sync their data to in addition to their own machines.

 

[Entegy]

But we already have tons of cloud services. As I already mentioned, there are scenarios where I want to sync files among multiple devices without the cloud. The nice thing about Cubby and Windows Live Mesh is that they switch to LAN syncing when devices are on the same network while also doing sync over the Internet with no extra hassle when required. They just work.

So far what I'm seeing right now is that this tool is only for LAN sync.

 

[onkeljonas]

Kazper[/url]":1k30ed1d]

onkeljonas[/url]":1k30ed1d]Both SparkleShare and Git-annex do pretty much the same thing (both opensource).

Except they both (if I understand them correctly) require you to set up a server to act as a central hub for your peers. The point here is that no such central server is needed (although in a small enough cloud it'd probably be a benefit to have one).

Negatory.

None requires a central server. Both can use one.

sporkwitch[/url]":1k30ed1d]

onkeljonas[/url]":1k30ed1d]Both SparkleShare and Git-annex do pretty much the same thing (both opensource).

Do they have clients for all three major platforms and what basically amounts to one-click setup? If not, they're not fulfilling the niche that this is targeting. (at work, so the links are blocked).

SparkleShare has Linux, OSX and Windows clients. I haven't used it in a while, so I'm unsure how easy the setup is now - but I think it is still more complicated than a one-click-install.

Git-annex has Linux and OSX but no Windows client (on the roadmap though). I haven't tried it yet, but its "assistant" interface looks very simple. When you get the chance, check out the screencast.
Git-annex does more than simple syncing, and with a more fullfeatured program you probably get a more complex user experience (although 'more complex' can amount to having buttons for integrating cloud services and such).

From git-annex homepage for the websensed:

Spoiler

use case: The Archivist

Bob has many drives to archive his data, most of them kept offline, in a safe place.

With git-annex, Bob has a single directory tree that includes all his files, even if their content is being stored offline. He can reorganize his files using that tree, committing new versions to git, without worry about accidentally deleting anything.

When Bob needs access to some files, git-annex can tell him which drive(s) they're on, and easily make them available. Indeed, every drive knows what is on every other drive.
more about location tracking

Bob thinks long-term, and so he appreciates that git-annex uses a simple repository format. He knows his files will be accessible in the future even if the world has forgotten about git-annex and git.
more about future-proofing

Run in a cron job, git-annex adds new files to archival drives at night. It also helps Bob keep track of intentional, and unintentional copies of files, and logs information he can use to decide when it's time to duplicate the content of old drives.
more about backup copies

use case: The Nomad

Alice is always on the move, often with her trusty netbook and a small handheld terabyte USB drive, or a smaller USB keydrive. She has a server out there on the net. She stores data, encrypted in the Cloud.

All these things can have different files on them, but Alice no longer has to deal with the tedious process of keeping them manually in sync, or remembering where she put a file. git-annex manages all these data sources as if they were git remotes.
more about special remotes

When she has 1 bar on her cell, Alice queues up interesting files on her server for later. At a coffee shop, she has git-annex download them to her USB drive. High in the sky or in a remote cabin, she catches up on podcasts, videos, and games, first letting git-annex copy them from her USB drive to the netbook (this saves battery power).
more about transferring data

When she's done, she tells git-annex which to keep and which to remove. They're all removed from her netbook to save space, and Alice knows that next time she syncs up to the net, her changes will be synced back to her server.
more about distributed version control

If that describes you, or if you're some from column A and some from column B, then git-annex may be the tool you've been looking for to expand from keeping all your small important files in git, to managing your large files with git.

 

[giantbee]

vogelabv[/url]":2o744w6j]

Scorp1us[/url]":2o744w6j]I'm over on the forum asking the devs "Why? and how is this different from RSync" They don't have any really good answers.

Excuse my ignorance but does rsync run on Windows and Mac with a simple interface?

I am not sure what you'd consider "a simple interface", but I certainly run it on my macs to sync all the tunes between my two Serato installs, from a little script that I leave on the desktop.

 

[giantbee]

Haravikk[/url]":3oq7ji1r]
But I do agree with most posters that its utility is a bit underwhelming; I don't have anywhere off-site to set up a Bittorrent Sync network for, which is why I use Dropbox for syncing important stuff (my double-encrypted 1Password keychain) and Crashplan for backing up important stuff from my NAS (so it can backup overnight).


I don't think this service is really all that useful otherwise; the advantages for large file transfers are interesting, but otherwise I think that it won't be truly useful unless someone sets up a service for users to sync their data to in addition to their own machines.

Well, for very specific use cases (like those of the devs, maybe) it's probably quite a cool trick. However, that very specificity makes it a lot less useful for many folks, for many different reasons.

Dropbox remains more useful for me, simply because it goes through firewalls and things without upsetting anyone, or making them suspicious, and I don't need to leave any machines of my own on Them Interwebs if I don't feel like it. I suspect that's not uncommon as a consideration.

I am also generally trying to reduce my power consumption a bit these days; I knocked it down 20% at home last year. Thus I am now less likely to lash up up old machines with a Freenix and leave them online just 'cos any more.. Moreover, one megabit upstream on bloody ADSL is less pleasant than having things stored elsewhere, ready to go.

 

[DavidNielsen]

sporkwitch[/url]":3kppr2o1]

onkeljonas[/url]":3kppr2o1]Both SparkleShare and Git-annex do pretty much the same thing (both opensource).

Do they have clients for all three major platforms and what basically amounts to one-click setup? If not, they're not fulfilling the niche that this is targeting. (at work, so the links are blocked).

== SparkleShare specific commentary ==

SparkleShare was originally designed to make the workflow around the GNOME Artwork team easier. It does come with clients for all major desktop platforms. It does require a Git account though which isn't as easy to set up, and using a public git server such as GitHub would likely be seen as abuse of that service. Additionally using a public server would be.. well public.

We are having a big .NET and GNOME hackfest later this year, at which the SparkleShare lead developer will be present and I will be happy to ask him what we can do to make this easier to set up and use. I believe it would be a good place to extend the application and perhaps a way GNOME could get into cloud hosting. E.g. GNOME could offer to run the service as a fee and provide some storage space. If all the required server software was available for people to install that would be a good way to ensure SparkleShare remains free while also providing some means of income for GNOME selling desirable services that they can tie into their platform.

Regardless, our hackfest wikipage is here:
https://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/dotNET2013

== Sync App commentary ==

As for the Bittorrent Sync app, I was on the closed alpha test. It has certainly gotten to be a prettier app since then but it is still very complicated compared to Dropbox. It also does not and has no prospect of getting clients for iOS.

I imagine the best way to set this up would be for Bittorrent Inc. to provide easy to install applications for NAS devices such as the Drobo. They could perhaps partner with Western Digital to offer it pre-installed on their MyBook NAS devices. Having constantly present service is really key to making it useful and running it on your laptop just isn't enough to provide that.

Additionally they would need to ensure buy in with App developers and Websites to get integration. E.g. when I buy an O'Reilly book it is automatically added to my Dropbox and when I open up Marvin Reader on my iPad I can add the new book from Dropbox directly where I want to read.

Having a folder synced and present on all devices isn't useful either, I might only be interested in small files on my iPad but I would like to store bigger items such as my Movie collection "in the cloud". I don't want that automatically syncing, so having a per file sync status would be needed, I do not recall if the Sync App does this but it would surprise me if it didn't. I was honestly not that impressed with it during testing.

I believe their big problem will be getting this to be useful. Dropbox is useful because it is everywhere, in apps, websites and services. Hell my 1Password files are synced between devices that way.

To get there they need partnerships, without a central cloud, they need to present something similar that is easy to setup. They are not going to get people to hack their existing NAS devices to add applications (my MyBookWorld e.g. could run apps, but it would require some significant work on my part, especially compared to say opening an Dropbox or Mega account). The only way to get to such a stage is to get buy-in from NAS vendors in my mind.

To get buy-in from App developers they would need to be on all major platforms, Apple sadly has a history of being harsh on Bittorrent applications especially on iOS so they are running into problems on the number 1 mobile platform presently. Requiring a jailbroken device is a no-go for ease of use so they would need to lobby Apple or have government entities put pressure on them to reverse the policy based on discrimination. Aside that for a mobile platform a bandwidth and CPU intense approach like bittorrent is likely to be undesirable, though this could be argued as being a temporary cost for the duration of the file transfer only so not likely to cause major problems.

I think their most likely way to reach success with this would be to start by joining the Drobo Apps program. Drobo users would seem to be technically knowledgable and also the kind of users who are inclined to trust their own services rather than a cloud provider. It seems like a good place to start to me, with that base built I think it is an easier sale for other NAS vendors as added value for future products.

However I doubt they will be able to get there because of one thing.. blocked ports.

The final problem they need to overcome that cloud vendors tend not to face is closed ports. Whereas every cloud vendor can count on having an open middle point between devices, a bittorrent decentralized P2P service cannot. It would be highly likely that devices would not be able to connect to each other. Punching holes through firewalls is a notoriously hard problem and not something every user will know how to optimize for. I think this is going to be the problem that kills this for wider use to be honest. Of course the magical IPv6 future supposedly is going to allow us to avoid this problem but in reality that is unlikely to be the case, at least for many years to come.

tl;dr: Not on iOS due to Apple policy, hard to setup, hard to use and likely to run into problems with port blocking that will render the service unusable for all but a few users. Nice try though.

 

[imladris]

I found it interesting and tried it, syncing a folder on a OS X 10.8 machine with one on Windows 7 on it. It works, mostly, but I found it annoying that they advertise it as "good for large files", but still it doesn't recognize the 4.6 GB file I wanted to transfer. A file at ~1.6 GB is recognized, though. Some 32-bit limit? Both binaries are 32-bit, but I would expect a program that handles torrents to be able to handle very large files.

EDIT: Now it started syncing the file. It really took some time, but still.

 

[hydac6]

This sounds promising

 

[Scorp1us]

bvz_1[/url]":418ub4qr]

I have very little experience actually using rsync (and none using this new bittorrent sync) but one of the things I am looking for in a syncing client is encryption. I.e. my data synced from machine A to machine B but encrypted so that nobody between the machines could read it AND nobody on machine B can read it. Sort of using sync to do remote, encrypted backups..

You need to learn yourself ssh (putty on windows). Like most other unix tools it is a general purpose SSL transport that supports tunninling entire networks, shell sessions, file transfers, X11 traffic and anything else that needs to go somewhere and not be in plain text.

 

[Scorp1us]

Chuck Knucka[/url]":icm2u02n]I've been using this for a few days now. It's definitely a cool application. You won't find too many free applications that can do what BTSync does. But it is not an rsync replacement. Rsync will be able to increase and decrease the file size if it changes. BTSync currently resyncs the entire file if the file size changes. Rsync is typically used more for pushing out diffs while BTSync is bidirectional. Rsync also requires some substantial research to use while BTSync is pretty much install-and-go.

So you could, for example, keep an entire VM disk in sync between a work and home computer provided you use fixed disks. If you use dynamic disks, BTSync will end up syncing the entire disk. For large files, this becomes an issue especially if you lack free space on the target. They do provide a trash folder to recover though.

It's a very powerful tool and the fact that it's free must sting some other companies.

This disturbs me greatly. 50 years ago we were using heirarchical file systems 20 years ago the interenet took off. We're still inventing ways of moving files between computers.

I use a lot of diff tools. Hex diffing is something I do a lot of, and these are damn clever. I don't know why someone doesn't take the difference engine and connect it to a http server and voila, you have a firewall compliant, minimal bytes transferred sync engine. Rsync falls over when you add a byte in the middle (that block and all subsequent are "different", so if your first byte is moved one position back, you re transfer the entire file. These difference engines uses in hex editors I use can detect that. If I could get that diff out, I could send a minimal amount of bytes -- at a large computation cost. But I'm assuming local IO and CPU is not the bottleneck, but the wire is.

EDIT: I find it abhorrent that you may waste bandwidth with both this and rsync.

The problem I have with labeling this thing as a good thing for the "cloud" is cloud files are not the same as general torrents. Torrented files are copies of an original that never changes. With cloud files,, there is a higher expectation that this is a working file. I think this could be bad for those with bandwidth caps.

 

[danstl]

Can you spin up an AWS service with some storage and replicate as well? So you could replicate internally and also to a cloud provider?

 

[Thisismyarsname]

Nibblers[/url]":3munj6z3]Now we have a "legitimate" reason to demand that our internet providers do not block P2P traffic.

I say legitimate because until now if I have ever complained about this practice more people than I expected turn around and say: why do you need p2p? Isn't that just used by internet hackers to doenload illegal stuff? Sigh

Just say you need it for WoW updates, they use p2p. But then you would have to admit to playing WoW...

 

[countcracula]

A friend and I have been using this as a private p2p two-party music sharing factory.

Any time I get a song I want him to hear, or vice versa, we drop it into the shared folder. Just an example of how this can be used. Neither of us needs to have the password to a shared dropbox, don't need to go to some website and upload a file with a clunky web interface. We used to just send the songs over email, but that entails either of us having to check the mail and then download the file. This way is seamless.

The BitTorrent Inc (company) does something on their backend to resolve the keys to know who receives the share, which is kind of weird.

 

[conficio]

Does it actually distribute the files in file sharing ways (multiple clients with the same shared files communicating all together pulling the blocks from the nearest/fastest source and multipel source at the same time)?

The article seems to test only the one one one case, which is rather uninteresting.

Also does it allow to share one folder/file with user X and another with user Y and a third one with group XYZ, etc. ? I'm not clear on that based on the article

 

[countcracula]

conficio[/url]":38l6bl8o]Does it actually distribute the files in file sharing ways (multiple clients with the same shared files communicating all together pulling the blocks from the nearest/fastest source and multipel source at the same time)?

The article seems to test only the one one one case, which is rather uninteresting.

Also does it allow to share one folder/file with user X and another with user Y and a third one with group XYZ, etc. ? I'm not clear on that based on the article

First question, I *think* that it works this way but I don't have a way to confirm that.

Second question, Yes and No. You can use the app to set up multiple shares, and provide each distinct key to separate recipients. But, you are stuck sharing a top-level folder, so if two pieces of info are in the same folder but you'd like to share with two respective computers, you'd have to copy those files into their own respective folders and create a key for each.

 

[Supra5mge]

Everyone seems confused. In a nutshell this similar to copying files from computers in your own home over your own network. Except now you can do it over the Internet using P2P as your transfer protocol.

The way I will use this is simple. I have Mac while my family and friends use PC. I have a lot of videos pictures etc.. sitting on large harddrives formatted for Mac. This will save me formatting for 2 OSes and lugging expensive, if I drop it I am doomed hard drives around. I set this up, go 200mi away and I can share what I have by simply syncing to a folder I pre-set up. No cloud no nothing.

It seems a great solution to my problems. I have WAY too much data to store to a cloud in a cost effective manner. Some files reaching 17GB each. I plan on messing with this as soon as I get home tonight!

 

[MisterAlex]

What performs the function of a tracker in this system? I'm guessing we still have to connect (at least initially) with some kind of central server, right?

 

[Entegy]

The BitTorrent protocol does not require a tracker.

 

[MisterAlex]

Case example:
I configure this on my computer at home and set up a sync folder.
I go to the office and set it up there... but how? What facilitates the connection? Or do I need to input my public IP addresses each time I add a new peer to my swarm?

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Entegy[/url]":1k1i9a1z]The BitTorrent protocol does not require a tracker.

Decentralized, is still tracking.

 

[thewags05]

letao[/url]":2c5tag3j]I'll add a bit to the sentiment that this shouldn't be represented as an alternative to cloud-based services like DropBox. Another common use case for DropBox is accessing my files from anywhere, for example when I'm on vacation or at someone else's house. For BitTorrent Sync to be a viable replacement, I would have to leave my home computer on 24/7 and open it to the internet as a file server of sorts, which is way outside my normal usage pattern and is something I'd be hesitant to do.

If you want to do this securely I would recommend using vpn. Personally I think this is much more secure than leaving data in the cloud. I used to use a cloud service as it was the most convenient thing to use for me. I have since switched to BitTorrent Sync, as I have about 4 computers to sync with counting my work computer (thus ensuring I won't lose any of my data in the event of a hardware failure. With vpn setup I can always access my data wherever I go, not to mention my laptop/hybrid is one of my sync'd devices.

 

[Danathar]

Too bad I can't use that at work. The security people would find my computer in no time and slam a hammer on my head.

 

[leexgxreal]

Decker-Mage[/url]":c2r9u6t6]

sporkwitch[/url]":c2r9u6t6]
This actually raises MY question, though, which is can it sync through NAT over the internet, or do I need to be on the same local network?

Even if it requires being on the local network, this shows a lot of potential for getting rid of everyone's favourite headache: SAMBA config. Seems like it would be a hell of a lot easier to simply install this on all my machines and just punch in the secrets, than fighting with SAMBA and Windows to play nice with password-protected sharing.

Which is where I am. How do I cross NAT, especially when I do NOT have control of the routers/firewalls in question. This still has to meet the dead-easy criteria. ... still wading through the forum there.

Aside: sporkwitch? Talk about cognitive dissonance!

as long as you got one end open then NAT is not an issue (example being your home connection)

ok read the bottem of this page it still works even if both are blocking Upnp or you cant open the ports
http://labs.bittorrent.com/experiments/ ... ology.html

 

[albeec13]

g011um[/url]":uk9fdgcz]

albeec13[/url]":uk9fdgcz]So what's the benefit of this over, say, OwnCloud?

It's peer-to-peer instead of client-server, so it doesn't require you to run an OwnCloud server somewhere. It syncs content directly between devices. Sounds like it would be great for real-time backup to another computer/NAS in your house, or sharing picture/video content with family members etc.

I feel stupid for having asked that question now... haha. I was under the impression OwnCloud was also decentralized, unless I'm confusing it with another peer-to-peer personal cloud application whose name escapes me.

 

[Decker-Mage]

sporkwitch[/url]":1czspbzu]Either way, it's gotta be easier than making Windows play nice with SAMBA, never mind kludges like dynamicDNS (which are TOS violations on pretty much all american ISPs).

There was a nice piece here on Ars {http://meincmagazine.com/information-...y-extra-for-business-class-broadband-at-home/} on why one user paid the extra fee for Comcast Business class which is pretty apropos to your last, and the issue of servers and bit-torrent in general. DynamicDNS was the prior issue, although this only lends strength to that case of a provisioned server (licenses up the yin-yang here, TOS was the limitation). Interesting. Still no idea what I'd do with the phone service. My cell phone lives in a drawer. [EMail me, I might, just might, get back to you.]

 

[Carbon Fibre]

USMA56795[/url]":1k9ckup2]How does this compare to AeroFS?

Puts them out of business, in a general sense. The fact that the data HAS to go through them, encrypted or, not, yet you have to shell out for 5 or more 'collaborators" to share? Never understood them. Cloud-wise, nothing beats Wuala and SpiderOak in local file encryption.

 

[Carbon Fibre]

letao[/url]":zp6kq7i8]I'll add a bit to the sentiment that this shouldn't be represented as an alternative to cloud-based services like DropBox. Another common use case for DropBox is accessing my files from anywhere, for example when I'm on vacation or at someone else's house. For BitTorrent Sync to be a viable replacement, I would have to leave my home computer on 24/7 and open it to the internet as a file server of sorts, which is way outside my normal usage pattern and is something I'd be hesitant to do.

But your willing the data be seen by anyone on Dropbox. Use Wuala or SpiderOak. Security is key these days.

 

[Carbon Fibre]

sbol[/url]":24u0s9q6]owncloud.org?

Bittorrent is only interesting as a protocol because of the possibility of sending chunks onwards before you have the full file. I don't see how that applies to a sync tool.

I use OwnCloud for DAV sync, have some buggy interface issues but nonetheless workable.

 

[rodneykeene]

Hope they come out with an android app. I use dropbox to move Ebooks, music, photos and documents between my laptop, phone, tablet and home computers. I would like to use it for videos but the size restriction kills that idea. If Bittorrent releases a BitTorrent Sync android app I will definitely give it a try on all my systems.

 

[photomstr]

did not work after 15 minutes so I dumped it!

 

[thewags05]

photomstr[/url]":3ajrouc3]did not work after 15 minutes so I dumped it!

It's been working flawlessly between two of my windows computers. What are you running it on?

 

[falsifiable]

Ostracus[/url]":2cq5it7v]

Entegy[/url]":2cq5it7v]The BitTorrent protocol does not require a tracker.

Decentralized, is still tracking.

In the case of BTSync you can in fact disable server tracking when syncing over a LAN. You can also directly provide the network address of the devices that are allowed to exchange data.
My personal use case: sync a Mac, a PC and (eventually) a Synology NAS over the local network. I used Cubby until they started charging $$$ for the equivalent functionality and am now trying Sync.
Putting this on a NAS seems to be a PITA at the moment. As someone observed earlier, having the NAS vendors offer the tool as an optional package would remove a substantial hurdle to wider acceptance.

For those interested, the user guide can be found here.

 

[DonGateley]

I'm probably not the first to point this out but the headline is entirely false. It creates a peer-to-peer File Sync and not a peer-to-peer Dropbox. There is no cloud storage behind it so the difference is huge. The article clarifies this but please fix the headline to reflect the truth.

I hope Ars has not started resorting to click baiting.

OTOH, it probably won't be too long before enterprising entrepreneurs world wide connect this infrastructure to cloud storage in a simple way so that data availability isn't dependent on any of my own machines and can even be placed redundantly. Anybody know Kim Dotcom?

 

[onkeljonas]

Wuala and probably also dropbox etc already does "lan sync", so it'll get the files from machines on your local network when possible. Fast local sync + cloud storage.

And git-annex does it with your choice of cloud host if you want it.

 

[sporkwitch]

Decker-Mage[/url]":2dpu8sre]

sporkwitch[/url]":2dpu8sre]Either way, it's gotta be easier than making Windows play nice with SAMBA, never mind kludges like dynamicDNS (which are TOS violations on pretty much all american ISPs).

There was a nice piece here on Ars {http://meincmagazine.com/information-...y-extra-for-business-class-broadband-at-home/} on why one user paid the extra fee for Comcast Business class which is pretty apropos to your last, and the issue of servers and bit-torrent in general. DynamicDNS was the prior issue, although this only lends strength to that case of a provisioned server (licenses up the yin-yang here, TOS was the limitation). Interesting. Still no idea what I'd do with the phone service. My cell phone lives in a drawer. [EMail me, I might, just might, get back to you.]

Honestly I just use VPS's, rather than bothering to do things locally, and my gigabit router has a USB port to share a FAT-formatted drive (so the only thing I can't put on it are my ISOs). But yes, especially in the US, it's generally worth it to go for the business class, if only because it keeps them out of your hair, and actually provides you SOME guaranteed service. That said, this can be hit-or-miss as well; we had DSL (business class, obviously) at one of the computer repair shops I worked at before enlisting and it would go down all the time, completely killing our POS system (web-based quicken) and order placement and tracking (i.e. newegg.com lol).

 

[daneren2005]

DonGateley[/url]":1n6xs2zz]I'm probably not the first to point this out but the headline is entirely false. It creates a peer-to-peer File Sync and not a peer-to-peer Dropbox. There is no cloud storage behind it so the difference is huge. The article clarifies this but please fix the headline to reflect the truth.

I hope Ars has not started resorting to click baiting.

OTOH, it probably won't be too long before enterprising entrepreneurs world wide connect this infrastructure to cloud storage in a simple way so that data availability isn't dependent on any of my own machines and can even be placed redundantly. Anybody know Kim Dotcom?

It's peer to peer instead of cloud, that is the entire point of the article and the headline. It even says no cloud required at the end. Just because you are too dense to read doesn't make it click bait.

 

[DonGateley]

[/quote]
It's peer to peer instead of cloud, that is the entire point of the article and the headline. It even says no cloud required at the end. Just because you are too dense to read doesn't make it click bait.[/quote]

Then take "Dropbox" out of the fucking headline! It's misleading and you know it. Click bait? Well, it's what caused me to click.

 

[pierrebuz]

DonGateley[/url]":2lo0jl1t]

It's peer to peer instead of cloud, that is the entire point of the article and the headline. It even says no cloud required at the end. Just because you are too dense to read doesn't make it click bait.[/quote]

Then take "Dropbox" out of the fucking headline! It's misleading and you know it. Click bait? Well, it's what caused me to click.[/quote]

I didn't find it misleading. The title tells you enough so that you should be able to know whether you want to read about the concept. And specifically this combination: "Private, peer-to-peer Dropbox." This tells me: 1. Private: Your data stays with you. 2. Peer-to-peer: aka non-centralized. 3. Dropbox: tells me we're talking about a change detecting folder sync between computers. That's it. If those three words piqued your interest you click through. No deception at all.

And by the way: "There is no cloud storage behind it so the difference is huge." I think you have too rigid a conception of the cloud. If it's available (preferably always) on a server (your PCs are serving) from any internet-connected gateway and there is redundancy built in (peer-to-peer), what exactly is not cloud about this? Just because it's not stored on some gigantic server farm deep in some mountain in Oregon doesn't mean it's not "cloud." Heck, who's to say I don't set up my on EC2+EBS instance on Amazon?