FreeFileSync

Submit updates of portable freeware that are already listed in the database.
Message
Author
User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7949
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: FreeFileSync

#61 Post by webfork » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:49 am

Just checking in here: any other opinions about switching to the PortableApps version? There is no WinPenPack version (they're just linking to the main website) so we can skip that question.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: FreeFileSync

#62 Post by smaragdus » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:15 pm

@webfork
Just checking in here: any other opinions about switching to the PortableApps version?
I don't think there are any. I haven't tried to install version 8.0. Perhaps installing FreeFileSync 8.0 with great cautiousness, with internet connection turned off and with the help of Unchecky might not be the greatest security risk but I wouldn't recommend to anyone running the FreeFileSync installer. I suppose that the developer of FreeFileSync was aware that there were many users who extracted the installer and this was the real reason why he added this so called integrity check as a measure to make the installation unavoidable.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: FreeFileSync

#63 Post by JohnTHaller » Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:34 pm

Unfortunately, our PortableApps.com Format package is back at version 6.2, the last version that works properly when launched from another process (custom/portable start menu, third party file manager, scheduling app, etc).

I wish I'd been able to determine the bug introduced in 6.3 when I skimmed through the diffs. Then we could do a slight fork to fix that bug and allow users to use the bugfixes and features introduced over the last couple years.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: FreeFileSync

#64 Post by I am Baas » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:54 am

I do not trust sneaky developers, I stopped using FFS a long time ago when he quietly added Open Candy to the install process.

@Enternal

Can you open your "install.dat" file with notepad and provide the code within it for testing?
Bəəs 2.0

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7949
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: FreeFileSync

#65 Post by webfork » Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:03 am

I am Baas wrote:I do not trust sneaky developers, I stopped using FFS a long time ago when he quietly added Open Candy to the install process.
Yeah this is pretty close to what smaragdus is saying, making me think it's time to just take the entry offline. The only thing that makes me want to keep it on the site is all the work that was put into the entry over time. Maybe it's worth it to make a point?

Enternal
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: FreeFileSync

#66 Post by Enternal » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:22 am

@ I am Baas
Oops sorry for the late reply. Been a bit busy. The contents of install.dat is unreadable so I will give you the Hex contents instead.
03 C6 5B EC 03 C6 5B EC

From what I tested, it does not matter what the contents actually are as long as it's the same length of 8 bytes.

In general, I don't have much of an issue with Open Candy. Like for CDBurnerXP, I generally just use the OpenCandy version installer to support him/her and take the OpenCandy free version with me on my flash drive (as well as a portable version) wherever I go. This developer on the other hand keeps the OpenCandy version to his donors (they have to donate ever time a new version comes out to get it though) and his methods such as these are just ridiculous.

@ smaragdus
Thank you very much for uploading all those installers!

Yes that's the biggest issue with SyncBack and that it's not exactly portable and stealthy. Other than that, for what I needed, it's very usable. It's limitations compared to the other versions and FFS include no cloud or FTP support, scripting, and copying open/locked files. It's better to check this table and decide on what's important to you: http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare.html

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7949
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: FreeFileSync

#67 Post by webfork » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:31 am

webfork wrote:So the FreeFileSync entry keeps breaking and I keep having to go back and fix the extract instructions, which is getting tedious. At the moment neither UniExtract nor 7zip are opening it. A disclaimer is up now but I'm going to make the hopefully rare suggestion that we switch the entry over to point to the PortableApps package.
Well I waited a week on this one and something's got to be done. I switched to the old PA version. The previous extract instructions are below:

  1. Download the installer and extract to a temporary folder (requires the latest version of Innounp as described in the FAQ)
  2. Copy the contents of {app} to a folder of your choice
  3. Launch FreeFileSync.exe


Optionally, to save space, remove .WAV files and any unneeded languages from the \Languages folder.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: FreeFileSync

#68 Post by smaragdus » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:04 pm

@webfork
FreeFileSync version 6.2 is more than 2 years old. I think it would be better to keep to FreeFileSync version 7.9- the last one which can be extracted without installation.

@Enternal
You are welcome. I thinks SyncBackFree might be useful to me since I do not need the cloud features and incremental & differential backups- all I need is simple synchronization. But there are several free (and some of them- portable) programs which can do that. I think I should create a list of FreeFileSync alternatives. For me both DirSync Pro and FullSync work fine (the first one is portable, the second one is not) but both require Java. One more thing- if you still have install.dat file- can you upload it so that we can check whether the extracted version 8.0 would accept it?

Anyone may have a look at jaBuT which is not very popular but a robust backup and synchronization program (portable to boot) and therefore it is an alternative to FreeFileSync.

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: FreeFileSync

#69 Post by I am Baas » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:44 pm

Enternal wrote:@ I am Baas
Oops sorry for the late reply. Been a bit busy. The contents of install.dat is unreadable so I will give you the Hex contents instead. 03 C6 5B EC 03 C6 5B EC
Does it look something similar to this?
2016-03-26_142951.jpg
2016-03-26_142951.jpg (5.31 KiB) Viewed 17951 times
Can you also upload your install.dat file? Thanks.
Bəəs 2.0

Enternal
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: FreeFileSync

#70 Post by Enternal » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:56 pm

@ smaragdus
I will take a look at jaBuT then since I don't like software that relies on Java but that's just me haha.

@ I am Baas
No it does not look like that although that's probably just more like an encoding issue depending on the editor. Anyway, I have attached it to this post.
Attachments
install.zip
(163 Bytes) Downloaded 96 times

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: FreeFileSync

#71 Post by I am Baas » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:09 pm

Enternal wrote:@ smaragdus
I will take a look at jaBuT then since I don't like software that relies on Java but that's just me haha.

@ I am Baas
No it does not look like that although that's probably just more like an encoding issue depending on the editor. Anyway, I have attached it to this post.
Thanks Enternal. No, not an encoding issue. Apparently, the installer generates a unique install.dat file, the one you have attached to your post was not accepted.
Bəəs 2.0

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: FreeFileSync

#72 Post by I am Baas » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:12 pm

smaragdus wrote:@webfork
FreeFileSync version 6.2 is more than 2 years old. I think it would be better to keep to FreeFileSync version 7.9- the last one which can be extracted without installation.
Agreed.
Bəəs 2.0

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7949
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: FreeFileSync

#73 Post by webfork » Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:32 am

I am Baas wrote:
smaragdus wrote:I think it would be better to keep to FreeFileSync version 7.9- the last one which can be extracted without installation.
Agreed.
Two issues with that:
  • As soon as we switch it over and then lo-and-behold some newer version comes up that someone figures out how to extract, we'll be back to maintaining this nonsense. A program that -- it seems from posts on this thread -- nobody on the site even cares about.
  • The 6.3 version at least *might* get some assistance from the PortableApps crowd where I doubt the FreeFileSync developer will support anything other than the latest version.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7949
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: FreeFileSync

#74 Post by webfork » Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:04 pm

Upon reflection, we could definitely link to a forum post from the entry about this so someone who was willing to muddle through the odd details could without sending our non-adventurous visitors off on a confusing errand.

Where is the last portable version hosted?

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: FreeFileSync

#75 Post by smaragdus » Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:32 pm

@webfork
Where is the last portable version hosted?
You mean the last version which can be extracted (no integrity check)? This is FreeFileSync 7.9 which can be downloaded from FileHippo.
In my opinion both links may be provided- to the last PortableApps version (6.2) and to the last extractable version (7.9). But there should be 2 separate How to extract entries- one for the PortableApps version and one for the native version.
A program that -- it seems from posts on this thread -- nobody on the site even cares about.
In fact I like FreeFileSync and still use it (it is robust and and easy to configure) but I dislike the developers malignant tactics (the so called integrity check being the latest one).

Post Reply