Leaderboard

Just going to note something here (and hope my Synergy overlords pin it). I've seen it around the forum a lot, and I'd like to point this out and end it, since the question has been asked repeatedly and had to be answered by I or another community member, wasting time that could have been used to team-troubleshoot someone's actual issue/glitch. No, Synergy 2 is not free. You may grab it by clicking this link It is $19 at the time of posting (9/25/2017). This is BETA software. Many users call it an alpha, but whatever you decide to coin it, that's what it is marketed as. Synergy

Actually, that was based on outdated market research we did a few years ago. Our more recent research shows that half our users are: graphic designers, animators, stock traders, sound engineers, and many more professions like that (the trend is also increasing upward as our user base grows). This aligns quite well with the adoption curve (that most people aren't technical, and that early adopters are).

Additionally, the Synergy 2 early access is primarily designed for technically-minded users that know how to go through the troubleshooting process and use some of the more obscure tools on systems to troubleshoot their issues. It is not designed for a production environment (which is fairly obvious, given its beta state) and it may take a lot of time out of your day to troubleshoot certain issues in order to get Synergy 2 running again. There's a reason its a beta. If you want something that mainly works with relatively little issues compared to Synergy 2, get the stable branch of Synergy, ot

I'll jump in too. First, there are hundreds of thousands of successful, satisfied, Synergy users. There are hundreds of successful, satisfied, Synergy 2.0 beta users. If all this were not true, there would be no Synergy. You have a choice. You can take the time to work with the developers, even Nick, to work through your unique systems to reach a successful installation. Both you and Synergy will learn from the process. Or you can accept the gracious offer of a refund of whatever you have invested. You can go away happy. The rest of us will go forward, participating, learning and grow

I like the direction. Happy to have paid my 15 dollars and see how this evolves. It's not working for me currently in corp environment, but will be brilliant in other places where I use it more. 'magic' config is the right strategy, both for your core users AND for power users..... just because you CAN navigate confusing port config menus, doesnt mean you WANT to - keep up the good work. For those that don't like the beta - roll back. If you are annoyed that you have to roll back - reconsider being a beta tester.

This was fixed, it was a graphics problem associated with java...Google it to find the answer, which I should have done.

no refund, I knew that there could be problems.... I'll wait and use Synergy 1 meanwhile.

partway though adding all of my computers i have ran into an issue of seen and unseen. when i had 4 computers connected everything was working, each computer could be controlled and control the others, as i presume is the intention of synergy 2. but on adding a 5th computer things have stopped being quite so cohesive. as seen in the attached image. i have two computers that have almost made a two way relationship but the two computers sayuri10 and papurika have broken down when i added Kathryn. i have tried different combinations of reboots, cold boots, and service restarts, st

They say you only get one chance of first impression. And boy did Synergy 2 have the worst first impression ever. There are literally zero configuration options, nay, literally zero things to do, except move screens around. The whole thing either works on it's own or doesn't (in my case). As a power user, this is fucking awful. I literally have to pray to gods things work on their own instead of being able to set up ports, pass through connection through my router, etc. Supposedly it's picking up my old 1.8 setup? So why on earth does it not work with that one? That worked perfectly 5 min

Moderator note - Merged because of the similarity of the two topics (both relating to the actual connectivity and pre-use stages of Synergy 2)

beta 4 has a bug that it isnt using port 443, and will be fixed in beta5 and that is why it's recommended to disable firewall on the machines. I understand there is a security risk to that. I have an edge next gen firewall so i'm okay with my machine having that off in the mean time.

This currently is a rough beta, beta 4, there is a beta 5 due to be out in a few weeks time to quote @Nick Bolton "This will be fixed in beta5 (due in 4-5 weeks). Need a refund? [email protected]" It is far from perfect, but I am loving it overall, it seems more snappy than 1.8 was in my setup. It may currently exclude you from installing and using it. However it should not in the later versions.

Sad, I bought it knowing it's not final state, and been super happy with it, I used to have an issue with 1.x where if I left the cursor on my mac client and win+L when getting up from desk I'd have to use a mouse on the mac ( and keyboard if screensaver password was needed ) to stop synergy - log into windows - and restart synergy. This has been working so smooth on beta4 without having to deal with that. So Thank you sir, I'm glad to have been a part of this SDLC.

Copy/paste. Seems to be the answer to 90% of posts right now.

probably a problem with the linux service.

the ` key can be accessed most of the time by shift or alt, try googling it, my german is horrendous so ill leave that to you.

its fixed now, firefox 57.0a1(nightly) but I used to get a white page that didnt do anything. maybe it didnt execute the javascript thats supposed to undo payment thing, all of these unfinished payments are also in my transactions.

Don't worry. It's not actually recurring. It's an annoying quirk with PayPal One Touch.

We do intend to add a settings screen. We know we won't get it 100% right, but we want to get as close as possible before adding settings. We'll then start adding settings based on the most popular demands.

Hi, I like and understand the minimal approach that S2 is aiming for, however it alienates those of us (power-users) with experience of S1. My use case is Synergy installed on 3 devices: 2xDesktop (OSX+WIN64) and 1xLaptop (OSX)... the desktops are in home-office and work-office and are both servers to the laptop. When I tested at home (OSX+OSX) it worked first time and I thought, "this is cool, it'll save me having to tweak the settings when I move desks"; however once I arrived at work it fails (OSX+WIN64) and at first glance there isn't anything I can do to fix it (there probably is, bu

I've not read all of the posts, so some of this may already be started and may even be in the plan for future releases. Just sharing a views/ideas from brief use the beta, with the desire to support a product I've used for good while now and want to continue to succeed and improve over the coming years. So just to clarify, the offline vs cloud question. I see two components, the license verification and then there is configuration management. Much like password managers, you have two breeds. Those that use the cloud, that then must have add additional layers of security to protect

Hilariously, even Synergy wouldn't solve their frustrations, as the monitors are so far apart, you'd have to be a ginormous distance away to see all of them, and by the time you do that, you'd have to have monstrous-sized hands in order to reach those dang peripherals!

Please email [email protected] to receive further support on this topic. Refer to @Nick Bolton's post concerning the comparison between forum and technical support for end-users please. In all essence, technical support = email and user-to-user support = the forums. This post can be found here.

Personally, I disagree, and I'm about as much a 'power user' as anyone who signs up. The philosophy has been to get the "magic" configuration working first, and add only what's absolutely needed later. When the auto config does work, it's brilliant. That said, and alpha<->beta semantics/arguments aside, this isn't supposed to be a stable product. If you're a power user, you'll know how to read the log files and std out, scan ports, and open up telnet connections to figure out what's not working rather than venting here on the forum. Yes, you have no control over what gets sent up fo

iKah, The beta program for Synergy 2 is a separate license. It is intended for the technical minded that can put up with a few glitches.

try removing the dependencies you cant install, you probably already have the necessary dependencies. or you can try and take a look at this for installing the dependencies via backports.

I would have to say the only difference overall might be permissions on files when having to do with the APFS file system. Which is something totally under the hood and should not cause major issues, unless you use something that relies on less fine grain logging of timestamps on file access and modification. Can't think of any usage scenarios where that would apply to this kind of software as it should be operating in RAM mostly, except the log file and even finer grain timestamps won't be a burden on it most likely

Congratulations, I made you a moderator!

Renaming is a high priority feature, it'll be done before November.

This will be fixed in beta5 (due in 4-5 weeks). Need a refund? [email protected]

@Nick Bolton think you can oblige us users with this as a pinned posting? Or another of the dev team? I'll ask really really nicely. "Pwetty pwetty pweaze"

Try scroll lock key.

Actually, the real reason is that several of my systems are used in multiple locations. Many of those locations I do not want Synergy (or any other thing of similar ilk) broadcasting or trying to connect to systems. The right way to give this functionality is a simple off switch, which in the present beta is not there. Like many others, I've reverted to 1.8, for a number of reasons, but this is one of them. EDIT: I would like to say that I do feel that it's unfair for application developers such as yourselves to have to work around shortcomings in macOS, but

Assuming you're on Windows 10 (don't know how this translates to other versions or OSes), right click the Bluetooth tray icon, choose "Join a Personal Area Network", right click the machine you want to connect to, hover "Connect using >" and click "Direct connection". This should accomplish your goal by creating a local network using Bluetooth. Mind updating me how well this works out? I'm curious, considering how low bandwidth Bluetooth yields.

Just logged in to suggest this. It would be very cool!