Before all, I must say FreeFileSync (FFS) is a great tool. I think I will adopt it for my crucial need of security.
I lived most my developer's life with no other guardrail than the copy of my job on my customer's backups or some too numerous floppy disks. My own writings and other personal production where generally only at one place.
Later I decided to spend time on this ever growing problem.
I began with RoboCopy, a strong but complex way to achieve the daily mirroring of all my data. I did it in DOS batch (.bat), maybe in memory of the good old time. It had been an extremely difficulty to make a clean work as the task requires. Nevertheless, this had been my reliable mirroring solution for years.
But others solutions in the Internet existed and I felt the need and interest to explore them to see if I could replace RoboCopy and gain some extra features. It seems to be a quest...
When I recently downloaded FFS for my security needs, I went surprised to recognise it's interface. I remembered I had already used it in the past for another reason: comparing a bunch of folders. FFS did the job too well... I mean the folders I had to compare where so numerous and so different that I almost lost my head in the process! I finally stopped the work and removed FFS from my computer, probably associating my enormous problem with the innocent and accurate comparison soft I had searched for, and found in FFS!
I have compared a long (but not exhaustive) list of backup/sync tools, at the point I can hardly remember which makes what... The main thing that finally made me choose FFS is the free access to MY OWN PARAMETERS into a description file in plain text, be it in XML or not.
Typically this sort of tool is constituted in two parts: one is the engine, the other the interface; between both a memorised list of parameters. To me, not leaving the straight access to the engine by storing the user parameters in a hidden/locked place is a mean and counterproductive reflex, mainly when we talk about a complex thing like data-security. It is extremely appreciable to be able to rename tens of paths with one search/replace action rather than spending time and loosing fiability because of a clicking interface. By protecting things that belongs to the user, developers tends to imprison them. When one would like to make it impossible to divorce, don't marry!
My others first reasons to choose FFS was his strong reputation of fiability and speed. One more major reason is the date of the last version - current month - (one of the best concurrent to FFS that I found was stopped in 2009 and hangs on Win7).
When I began to simulate with FFS the exact job I did previously with RoboCopy, I went impressed by all the "little things" (versionning, naming a drive, etc.) it does and by the quality of logical integration in the interface.
I make interfaces since decades and I can feel when a conception is coming for the very heart of the problem it have to address or just from the wishes of the programmer being so so smart than he can't be wrong. I don't give a hundred percent of notation to the FFS interface: I don't really like it's ergonomic and look which seems to me by some points a little confusing. It is just a decent interface to me, but I don't criticise the maker, because I know very well it takes an enormous work to make it perfect, which only the biggest teams (or time) can achieve. But I repeat, on this base, the integration of all the functionalities in FFS is quite excellent and I hardly find which functionality is really missing to me. This is an excellent new isn't it?
In fact, the task of syncing and saving data is not quite well defined at this time for certain reasons, that's why we can find so many complementary solutions and I think that in some ways, FFS could have some more things to come, from what I consider as a lack, to a change of paradigm!
I will post these lacks and paradigms in distinct messages.
Appreciation
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 28 Aug 2014
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
I appreciate your feedback! FFS nowadays is mainly working on the last 10% part of work according to Pareto's 90 - 10 principle => there are (almost) no easy design problems left. But I never take hard problems as an excuse for not tackling them. So I'm looking forward to the issues (any maybe solutions) you discovered.
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 28 Aug 2014
It is to me always a great pleasure to talk about a nice work. The pleasure is greater again when it is with it's conceptor. I am writing more specifically for you, and I'm really pleased by your answers!
Since my messages, I've been thinking again to the lack of your program and I doubt having real other ones (for the uses I have of it). I previously wanted to talk about compression and encryption, but I really wonder, as you certainly did many times, whether this feature intrinsically depends on the sync software or on the support which receives backups and mirrors. I suppose it is a debate that I'll find somewhere in this forum.
Other subject, I appreciate the "pairs of folders" notions which I feel like very well integrated to the analysis and interface. I can't yet give my analytic point of view at this subject, but I can give my "living" one: fluid, powerful, practical, dense, in one word, excellent. The study of my needs perfectly fits to the FFS possibilities, and even more, is naturally simplified. For the first time, I begin to feel like the "king" of my security mirrors.
My criticises for some aspects of the interface remains, but I realised I had to be more precise because they are quite located and superficial. One must keep in mind that I see very well and appreciate the research and work done for it.
I watch me using the program as a user.
The general bad feeling I have about the interface lays in the non-natural processes it requires to me to be in "automatic-piloting" of the program. I mean by autopilot: when the action I have to execute jumps to the mouse without delay! In details, I always search for some enormous buttons, I'm always surprised by the effect of another nice button that I took days to really understand, I'm always fighting with windows that proves usefulness sometimes and not some others. All crucial points you already fought with, I'm sure.
I don't think I would have done better. But I think it's a last but not least brake to the wider acceptance of your work. I can't obviously give you the "perfect design" for a problem I didn't even work on, but I can give you my "fresh" and distant vision, and maybe some minor suggestions to maybe enhance the interface. I've taken some notes during my discovering of FFS, I will transcript them later here.
I also watch me using the program as a programmer. This will be the point of view for another answer that I allow myself to express here about the issue of exclusions.
Since my messages, I've been thinking again to the lack of your program and I doubt having real other ones (for the uses I have of it). I previously wanted to talk about compression and encryption, but I really wonder, as you certainly did many times, whether this feature intrinsically depends on the sync software or on the support which receives backups and mirrors. I suppose it is a debate that I'll find somewhere in this forum.
Other subject, I appreciate the "pairs of folders" notions which I feel like very well integrated to the analysis and interface. I can't yet give my analytic point of view at this subject, but I can give my "living" one: fluid, powerful, practical, dense, in one word, excellent. The study of my needs perfectly fits to the FFS possibilities, and even more, is naturally simplified. For the first time, I begin to feel like the "king" of my security mirrors.
My criticises for some aspects of the interface remains, but I realised I had to be more precise because they are quite located and superficial. One must keep in mind that I see very well and appreciate the research and work done for it.
I watch me using the program as a user.
The general bad feeling I have about the interface lays in the non-natural processes it requires to me to be in "automatic-piloting" of the program. I mean by autopilot: when the action I have to execute jumps to the mouse without delay! In details, I always search for some enormous buttons, I'm always surprised by the effect of another nice button that I took days to really understand, I'm always fighting with windows that proves usefulness sometimes and not some others. All crucial points you already fought with, I'm sure.
I don't think I would have done better. But I think it's a last but not least brake to the wider acceptance of your work. I can't obviously give you the "perfect design" for a problem I didn't even work on, but I can give you my "fresh" and distant vision, and maybe some minor suggestions to maybe enhance the interface. I've taken some notes during my discovering of FFS, I will transcript them later here.
I also watch me using the program as a programmer. This will be the point of view for another answer that I allow myself to express here about the issue of exclusions.
