Talk:Comparison of file synchronization software
Entries to add
- Puresync
- Memeo autosync
- SyncBreeze
unnecessary "cleanup"
Someone ( Hm2k ) has deleted CleanSync and other items in Revision as of 21:06, 10 May 2010
:-(
--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.191.96 (talk • contribs)
system requirements
It should be useful to list also system requirements of compared software , because it has impact on performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.191.96 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
wrong license type
Some items requests license agreements other than listed in the table ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.55.255.41 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Three tables?!
I really don't understand this format. Like people only did care about certain features if tool is proprietary. They should be compared altogether, with the Licence as a column.
Having two tables would be useful if we want to split: general information, more important features, less important features.
And a column for "Paid version" is almost a joke. If there is no paid version available, I guess the software has no interest at all. --LQST (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Missing explanation
There are some software not made to work in Linux enviroments. I created a hypothesis: can a Windows laptop access a Linux shared partition (using Samba), and sync it's content, thanks to a Windows aplication that doesn't work in Linux? Can this sort of solution work? Or is it necessary to have the aplication installed in both machines? The answer to this could be put in the reference item.