blistovmhz

I dig the zero-conf in principle, but if it doesn't work...

80 posts in this topic

All valid points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed on the Zero-Conf; great idea, not always great in practice. And have that receptionist watch out for those flying cursors... duck if they come too close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All valid points. Minus the cursing I like how you are able to articulate what is bothering you and why.

One thing I would like to know is how you are connecting your VPN? Without giving too many details about your remote client what are the settings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blistovmhz said:

P.P.S. *sigh*. I just noticed that you have to approve all forum submissions.

This is more for spam/flaming purposes and not for big brother activity.

Trust me. I have had negative things to say. We welcome honest information with good criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JDDoesIT said:

All valid points. Minus the cursing I like how you are able to articulate what is bothering you and why.

One thing I would like to know is how you are connecting your VPN? Without giving too many details about your remote client what are the settings?

OpenVPN, TUN, via UDP. VPN subnets are manually defined (not inherited). So all of my machines do technically have routes to each other, as I allow p2p communication. The kicker is that the TUN interface has an average of 20 hops each way, while the LAN iface has 1 hop, but Synergy for some reason will up and decide to use the TUN for client>client communication. Then it'll just change it's mind again later.  I'm not even sure how this problem arises. Yes, Synergy is supposed to be able to traverse VPN's, but if it has that capability, it must have a way to determine the cheapest path, so I absolutely can't imagine how it's determining that the TUN is the lowest cost, given it is by far the slowest by every metric. Even just the number of physical hops, as determined by traceroute, would show LAN  = 1 hop, TUN = minimum 6 if the path calculation ignores that we're on the VPN, and 40+ if it keeps it in mind.

This problem affects me the most, as I work 1000 miles from the office, but even my on-site developers take their laptops home, and they end up with the same issue where either their laptop and home desktop are communicating over the VPN, or their laptop (at home) thinks it's at the office and all of a sudden they have 9 PC's they're connected to, but only 2 in front of them.
 

 

Edited by blistovmhz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't have any problem approving your post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with everything in this post. When I had to do all of the configuration settings manually on previous versions (Been using synergy since the beginning) I never had any issues. No i have connection issues every time one of the machines reboots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/01/2018 at 4:05 PM, blistovmhz said:

you're working on something else

Actually, we're currently focusing entirely on Synergy 2.0 bug fixes. We will soon be focusing on new features for Synergy 2.1, which will include documentation. This is due in about 6 months. Thanks for your patience.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2018 at 8:15 PM, Nick Bolton said:

This is due in about 6 months.

6 months...?

I think synergy 2.0 is now in beta. This is because 2.0 versions do not implement most of the key features(almost things are "coming soon") that stand out compared to version 1.8.

I pay for it, but I do not think it is worth paying for it and use it now. It's hard to see clearly what the difference between the current 2.0 and 1.8 versions is...

Edited by Nathaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I've got no idea. On paper, 2.0 is supposed to do more, but ends up doing less.

I did confirm that any time ANY machine connected to my Synergy account, goes offline and comes back online, Synergy stops working on all clients. This is why I've been so screwed up. Every time I let one of my laptops go to sleep, or it leaves the house, all client services have to be restarted (which of course means connecting a keyboard to every windows machine.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, blistovmhz said:

Yea, I've got no idea. On paper, 2.0 is supposed to do more, but ends up doing less.

I did confirm that any time ANY machine connected to my Synergy account, goes offline and comes back online, Synergy stops working on all clients. This is why I've been so screwed up. Every time I let one of my laptops go to sleep, or it leaves the house, all client services have to be restarted (which of course means connecting a keyboard to every windows machine.
 

I think synergy 2 could be more useful if we had the option to manually configure it vs being forced to use the zero conf approach. IE default to zero conf, but have some advanced options to allow "power users" to set things up them selves. I would suspect the majority of users of this tool would fall into the latter category. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*le sigh*.

So I've been trying to send a support request to inquire about being able to apply synergy 2.x pro licenses against 1.x, because 2.x is just unusable, but I already purchased a bunch of seats. Of COURSE their support ticket submission doesn't work.

Guys! Come on!

Incidentally, I'll just ask here since there doesn't seem to be any other way to submit requests. Can we have all our 2.x licenses be applicable to 1.x until 2.x becomes remotely stable?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jml said:

That's an interesting idea!

Sure would go a long way to alleviate the pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, blistovmhz said:

Of COURSE their support ticket submission doesn't work.

1

When did you last try the support form? We re-implemented it a few days ago, so that bug should be fixed.

Quote

Incidentally, I'll just ask here since there doesn't seem to be any other way to submit requests.

If you're still unable to use the support form, please email us: [email protected]

10 hours ago, blistovmhz said:

Can we have all our 2.x licenses be applicable to 1.x

Yes, of course. Please contact customer service: [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I purchased a license for 1.x long ago because I thought it was project worth supporting. However, that project has clearly become a commercial endeavor, that hasn't followed through on its commitments. These are the same sort of laughable responses that Symless and Nick Bolton have provided about Synergy 1.x bugs and issues. It's why I have not, and will not, purchase a license for 2.x; and neither should you.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. However, there are a lot of us -- myself included -- who are successfully using 2.0 and used 1.x for a long time, and while I can't dispute that there's a number of significant issues, I have to take exception to your recommendation. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nick has certainly been flexible about refunding license fees for those who request it, and for converting licenses for those who request that, and I think it's a bit unfair to paint this "laughable".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JML Lol, are you the reading the same/similar, numerous, yet considerate, posts about the ridiculously poor quality of 2.x, that I am? Clearly, not. Perhaps you should put down the Kool-aid. I won't be purchasing 2.x because the thoughtful posts written by so many other users, serve as clear warning that it would be a waste of time and money. And as the responses from Symless and Nick Bolton remind me of similar responses to years-old bugs and issues in the 1.x forums, I think it's perfectly fair to state that Symless and Nick Bolton's responses are laughable. 

Edited by MWP13
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, your call. I don't mind spending a bit of money (and considerable time, as a volunteer moderator here) helping to improve a product I use daily. There are a lot of thoughtful posts here, and I know the team appreciates them all, even those simply expressing frustration. I'm frustrated too with some things in 2.x and have made that clear to the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder which posts he thinks are laughable?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't argue with those feature requests -- or most of your main points. Not TL at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, blistovmhz said:

my guess is he's referring to major bugs being scheduled for a fix in "6-8 months"

The next round of features are due in about 6 months, but bug fixes for zeroconf are imminent.

If all goes to plan, there should be a new update available to download tomorrow morning.

@Steve Williams Anything to add?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now