My apologies if this topic has been brought up before on this forum, but I did a brief keyword search for 'password' and couldn't find any discussions. I was wondering if there is an option to add password prompting to the manager since my work PC can be accessed by other people in the office. If that feature is there, then great! Would somebody kind enough show me how to switch it on? I looked everywhere I could think of but with no luck. Otherwise, it would be great to have that in the next update.
I'd like to ask for the option to install the software as a service, with a pre-defined user so when we install this on servers that shouldn't always have an account logged in, that folders are still being synched.
This is one of those features thats pretty much make or break for businesses that want to keep certain local shared folders available to users who travel and still need to work with those back in the office seemlessly.
Is it absolutely necessary for SugarSync to require administrative rights to install and run on Microsoft Windows? I'm in a corporate work environment, do not have administrative rights on my work machine, plus have to deal with a proxy server with basic HTTP authentication. This limits what software I can install on my own and use. Insynq installs and operates without any issues, and DropBox also works (albeit with missing contextual menu commands due to lack of admin rights during the install). SugarSync—I can't even begin to install because of the admin rights issue. Is there a workaround, or is this something you can address in a future release of the Windows client?
Has anyone else found this too! I logged out, rebooted, No Quicklook! quit sugarsync! quicklook is back!
Must be a BUG guys, nice product if you could sort this problem out.
I have an external RAID box connected by firewire and I NEED to have the data on this disk synced! Before the most recent update, this was working. Now it's not possible!!
Not sure if others are noticing this. I'm having an issue with the new SugarSync Drive in 2.0. Specifically, when I launch the SS Drive and start browsing my Web Archive, the SS 2.0 client automatically downloads/caches any file that I select even if I don't open the file.
For example, I open the Mac Finder, click on the new SugarSync drive, go into the Web Archive, go into a sub-folder and then select a file. I haven't opened the file. I only selected the file so I could see how big it is. However in the background, SS 2.0 starts to download/cache the entire file. The local cached file is stored in the following folder:
This is, of course, a big problem. The whole point of the Web Archive is to upload files/folders which do not sync locally. Sometimes I'm storing very big files in the Web Archive. If the SugarSync drive just starts to download all of the files from the Web Archive - even if I haven't opened the file - then it defeats the purpose of the Web Archive.
Is anyone else experiencing this?
How the fuck do software companies constantly put out garbage with flaws so blaringly fucking obvious? Do you morons have some policy that says thou shall not use the software at all once it's done? No testing, just code, code, code... release! Let's not use it, we're pretty sure it's gonna be useful...
Why would you remove the option to permanently delete all the deleted files at once? And to top it off, you amazingly also removed the "select all" feature from the new web interface, so now you can't even permanently delete 100 or so files at a time. Dude, sugarsync's retardedness has blown my mind.
I just received an interesting mail from Sugarsync
As part of this change, we are removing the ability to share a universal link to a shared folder (the "Get Link" feature). The universal link is less secure since you can’t control who might gain access to the link (e.g., an intended recipient might accidentally forward the link to other unintended recipients). We’re also removing the password option since the new model is inherently more secure by allowing only specified recipients to accept the folder, preventing a password from being shared without your consent. And don’t forget that you can add or remove folder members at any point in time.
Now - call me a cynic, but this sounds more like Sugarsync trying to increase its registered user base by forcing everyone you send folders to, to sign up for an account, than to improve security.
I've found the flexibility of being able to send a link to a person very useful... simply because it requires less inconvenience for the person I'm sending it to, but is still a bit more secure than generating a completely public link. Everyone I know has 'Web 2.0 account fatigue', and if I'm sending a file to a customer, I'd rather just be able to include a quick link in my email to them, rather than send them a bannered service invite from the service provider requiring them to sign up for an online account, before they get the file I was sending them. It also feels unprofessional sending such an email between corporate contacts, whereas a link in corporate email itself is more acceptable. There's still plenty of branding and sign-up options at the other end of the download link, without sending them that mail. And what if his enterprise decides Sugarsync is out of policy, and blocks all direct emails from the service?
Folder passwords are also very handy against the threat of someone accidentally discovering a public link, since they still need the password to access it. Sending the password out of band (ie. in a text message, rather than in the same email/invite as the link itself) gives some insurance against data leakage, and makes the recipient feel more personally responsible for the security of that data: they can't say "oh, nothing to do with me, someone must have stumbled across that link on the internet", if they're the only one with the password. Losing this feature, for me, is a step backwards for Sugarsync against some of its competitors, such as Dropbox.
Now... I'm not completely adverse to getting recipients to sign up for accounts. Let's face it, viral spread is core to the business model for, well, everyone. I keep singing the praises of Sugarsync to my colleagues, and I've managed to refer 28 people to date, most of whom I'd only met once, by sending them documents that required signup. I'm not entierly adverse to it. But I would like to have the choice.
If we want to improve security, how about auditing access? That's something I would really rather see. If we're scared of who might be able to see our folders without our knowledge, then what I'd really like is to be able to run an audit report to see who read/wrote which file, at which time, using which link/password, from which IP address. It lets me see that people are using the links I send them. It lets me see who accessed a public link. It lets me detect if someone has tried to access files from unlikely/suspicious IPs.
OK - a big proviso here; this is my kneejerk reaction. I've not fully explored how this will change things, and there may be some benefits. I've also only just jumped into the forums here, which I visit very occasionally, and perhaps this has been discussed to death elsewhere. But I thought it might be a useful discussion kickstarter to vent here and now, and gauge different viewpoints :-)
SugarSync is almost perfect.
I could even pay for direct Outlook files support, without having to export or anything else.
Do you plan or do you have a temporal frame to support it?
I've just tried to refer a friend, and the account types available when they follow the link don't include the Free one, with the minimum being the 60GB account. They can't complete the sign-up process without adding payment details (which they don't want to do).
Obviously, they can sign up for the free account using a direct link, but presumably there's no referral bonus for either of us if they do that. Is there a way to sign up for a free acount where we get our referral bonuses like there used to be?