Leaderboard

Recently we surveyed a group of our users with a simple question: Should Synergy 2 be considered stable or beta? In November of last year, we officially released Synergy 2 as stable. We knew there were a few minor bugs but assumed we could fix them within a couple of months. Sadly, it became apparent that these bugs were not so small nor easy to fix. So with very careful consideration, we've made the decision to redeclare Synergy 2 a beta product. When will Synergy 2 be stable? We're going to leave this up to you to decide. As we make updates and enhancements, we'll continue to poll

Hey, i propose the creation of a redhat & related repository containing rpms for several distributions... This wouldn't require much changes to the current download area and i would be willing to help, if need be... Let me know your thoughts on this. Matt

I completely agree and relate to each of these points, except that I have been able to autoconfigure Synergy 2.0.x between two Windows machines, but each 1.8 problem Mikko has listed is still a problem in Syn 2. Also, I think this was a good decision Nick. Definitely a step in the right direction. Lastly, I want to emphasize one of Mikko's points: "If Synergy doesn't get their act together soon, I'll make the switch. I really want you guys to succeed though. Please just fix the basic features." The AltGr issue is such a huge pain if you're a programmer, and I can't understand how that

Agreed, thank you for recognizing that version 2 needs more work as a beta. I've tried every update to version 2, and have never been able to get it to work, and the support has offered no direction to solve the problem. For a very simple configuration (2 Windows machines on the same network, no exotic/overly-restrictive firewall, internet access) I would figure it would work without a hitch, but it never has. I'd like to see it truly be a simple setup, as it's supposed to be an easy install. And for those who have trouble, having any sort of configuration or troubleshooting options would be a

Hard decisions, but I agree as well that it was correct. I have (like some others) reverted back to 1.9 and will continue to test new versions as they arrive. I like the goal of the 2.x software and look forward to the day it delivers. I hope that my testing and data can help the dev team to track down the issues. Cheers!

I think that this was a great decision. To be honest, I was not happy at all that there were bug fixes in Synergy 2 that really should have gone into Synergy 1.9. I was on the fence for months about upgrading based upon this. After finally biting the bullet, I was not happy either that Synergy 2 seemed to lack polish / features from 1.9 and had new bugs of its own. Just seemed like a paid downgrade in many respects. I think that you might want to email your intentions to Synergy 1.9 supporters. Might encourage them to come back to support the work on Synergy 2.

I don't need any new features. I just want synergy to be stable, which it has never been for me. Focus on making it work, forget the bells and whistles. I've been on board since 2013. Off and on. Synergy 2 I have never been able to even try out even though I paid for it. It seems I need to be able to configure proxy. What benefit exactly would I get with cloud? 1.8 works OK between windows machines. That's the only fully positive experience I have from Synergy. Too bad I don't really need two parallel Windows PCs, but the other one always tends to be Linux. Between Wind

I want to compliment you on this decision. Can't have been easy, but I agree that it was the right choice. Just recently, I replied to one of my own support tickets that I was going back to v1.9, but would keep checking in on v2. My desktop sharing has been COMPLETELY stable on v1.9 for the last week now. Again, KUDOS for eating some crow and moving forward. I do hope to run v2 in the future. Spencer Swift