I’ve already suggested on IRC to offer a syncthing hosting service where you can optionally sync your files to (like Dropbox basically, but entirely optional). In the meantime, I’m still curious what the developers think of Bountysource? Other open source projects have managed to make money with similar business models (i.e. There are a number of options for a “value added” version of Synchthing. It’s not out of the question the core Syncthing engine could remain open source (unlike BTsync) while a premium paid solution is offered to those who want a more turn-key solution. They also all cost money if you want to sync more than a few GB of data and have access to their full feature set. None of those are open source but they do offer reasonably credible client-side encryption, well sorted multi-platform support, and are comparatively turn-key, mature, and painless. I think many are more interested in a self-hosted open source solution and/or client-side encryption.įrom that perspective, Syncthing is also competing with Boxcryptor, Tresorit, Spideroak, etc. With increasing numbers of servers/databases being hacked/compromised, concern about back doors, government spying, etc. BTsync has taken a significant turn for the worse and open source is a much better option in many ways. I’m largely in agreement with others in this thread. I’m curious what the “two man team” thinks of Bountysource and using financial incentives to potentially further Syncthing and perhaps attract new developers into the mix? There are already a few Syncthing requests posted. Expect response times, roadmaps and clearly identified leadership responsibilities accordingly But to a large extent, in terms of coding, reading and answering issues and support requests, setting up infrastructure and so on this is still a two man team.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |