blistovmhz Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Let me start with this: I've been using Synergy since day 1. Hell, I've been using it since before you developed it, as I'd developed my own almost 15 years ago and had been using it until Synergy was released. There have always been issues, but by and large, the convenience afforded by Synergy still outweighed the bugs. I've been using it since about a week after it's initial public release. That said, I feel like you guys are approaching the release of 2.x in... not a fantastic way... Synergy 1.x had it's issues and required configuration that scared off many users, but at the same time, it WORKED for those of us who used it. I dig the zero-conf in principle, but if it doesn't work, I'd much rather be stuck spending the 30 seconds to configure manually, than waiting months or years for someone to fix zero-conf. My development team (all horrible screen watchers) recently noticed, over my shoulder, that I was controlling multiple machines with one set of inputs, and sorta lost their collective minds (they're not Linux trolls... yet... so they're always blown away by the productivity enabled by Linux), so I purchased licenses for everyone. Of course 2.x worked so infrequently that they all quit using it, and now we're being told that we're in the minority (that's 25 workstations, completely homogeneous, nothing in common with each other) and that these small, but otherwise showstopping bugs won't be solved for 6-9 months? For what we paid for 2.x, I fully expect it to be at least useably stable, and/or expect that fixes be closer than nearly a year out. Same issues as everyone has been reporting. * Both Windows and Linux services seem to randomly stop working. Can see on my primary host that it simply stops sending packets to clients, or that clients simply stop responding. * Primary sharing machine hops around seemingly at random. The only time I ever touch my secondary clients is to restart Synergy. * No configuration options, no indication of what's going on in the background. Something else that hasn't really been well addressed: 1. Where is the documentation and changelogs? 2. How is 2.x communicating? 3. What is the host determination strategy? 4. What ports does it even require? Think about this from the I.T. Managers perspective. We have an application with no documentation which communicates over encrypted channels between (and unknown number of) clients. We have no idea how any of it works, but we know that it talks to the Internet, it does everything in the dark, and it randomly (every 10 minutes) stops working. No proper IT guy in his/her right mind would allow this on their clients machines, and if you think about your target demographic for a moment, you'll realise that of course there's a large chunk of it who reside in software development/high tech. Precisely where the IT folk are concerned about security. I strongly suspect that we're being told 6-9 months delivery for bug fixes because you're working on something else, but excuse my wording here, but that's bullshit. For what you're charging for 2.x these days, it is absolutely reasonable for us to expect the software to work, and to have documentation, in less than nearly a year. This whole thing feels like a $50/seat public beta for what is ultimately very nearly vaporware. Actually, "very nearly" is inaccurate as 100% of the features we've paid for, are still "coming soon", and even the basic functionality isn't working reliably yet. P.S. Tried to use contact form, but as many others have pointed out, it usually doesn't work. Didn't work for me. P.P.S. *sigh*. I just noticed that you have to approve all forum submissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jml Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 All valid points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blistovmhz Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 One other thing I forgot to mention. A big sell for 2.x was it's ability to figure itself out over complex networks. Guess what the administrators of complex networks don't want. Rogue applications sending probes all over the place and/or sending streaming data over a 4G connected VPN when a perfectly good ethernet is connected. I haven't been able to determine 2.x's routing strategy yet, but I've found that it consistently chooses precisely the least optimal route. IE: Every single time I connect my machines (at home) to my VPN to my clients office, both machines seem to immediately communicate with each other over the VPN at least 50% of the time. They are physically no more than 5 feet of ethernet cable away from each other, and the default route for both machines is via the local gateway (which shouldn't matter as they are on the same physical switch anyway). Despite this, 2.x will, in the middle of a session, start streaming itself through the VPN, which of course introduces an additional 200ms latency and it becomes unusable. The only way I've found to prevent this, is to use DPI to find Synergy traffic and block it before it can "discover" VPN connected hosts. This solution also solves the problem where my mobile laptop which of course comes with me to the office, comes home but now every single machine in the office now wants to be a part of my Synergy group, so I'll be mousing around here at home, and then all of a sudden I completely lose my mouse, and lose my mind for about 10 minutes until my receptionist at the office phones me to report Russians are on one of my machines at the office, because she can see my cursor flying around, 1000 miles away. Seriously guys. Zero-Conf is only good in principle, if it works absolutely flawlessly. Give us both documentation and at least basic control over what constitutes a "location". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jml Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Agreed on the Zero-Conf; great idea, not always great in practice. And have that receptionist watch out for those flying cursors... duck if they come too close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDDoesIT Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 All valid points. Minus the cursing I like how you are able to articulate what is bothering you and why. One thing I would like to know is how you are connecting your VPN? Without giving too many details about your remote client what are the settings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDDoesIT Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 hours ago, blistovmhz said: P.P.S. *sigh*. I just noticed that you have to approve all forum submissions. This is more for spam/flaming purposes and not for big brother activity. Trust me. I have had negative things to say. We welcome honest information with good criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blistovmhz Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 23 minutes ago, JDDoesIT said: All valid points. Minus the cursing I like how you are able to articulate what is bothering you and why. One thing I would like to know is how you are connecting your VPN? Without giving too many details about your remote client what are the settings? OpenVPN, TUN, via UDP. VPN subnets are manually defined (not inherited). So all of my machines do technically have routes to each other, as I allow p2p communication. The kicker is that the TUN interface has an average of 20 hops each way, while the LAN iface has 1 hop, but Synergy for some reason will up and decide to use the TUN for client>client communication. Then it'll just change it's mind again later. I'm not even sure how this problem arises. Yes, Synergy is supposed to be able to traverse VPN's, but if it has that capability, it must have a way to determine the cheapest path, so I absolutely can't imagine how it's determining that the TUN is the lowest cost, given it is by far the slowest by every metric. Even just the number of physical hops, as determined by traceroute, would show LAN = 1 hop, TUN = minimum 6 if the path calculation ignores that we're on the VPN, and 40+ if it keeps it in mind. This problem affects me the most, as I work 1000 miles from the office, but even my on-site developers take their laptops home, and they end up with the same issue where either their laptop and home desktop are communicating over the VPN, or their laptop (at home) thinks it's at the office and all of a sudden they have 9 PC's they're connected to, but only 2 in front of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jml Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Didn't have any problem approving your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality-X Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Agree with everything in this post. When I had to do all of the configuration settings manually on previous versions (Been using synergy since the beginning) I never had any issues. No i have connection issues every time one of the machines reboots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synergy Team Nick Bolton Posted January 31, 2018 Synergy Team Share Posted January 31, 2018 On 30/01/2018 at 4:05 PM, blistovmhz said: you're working on something else Actually, we're currently focusing entirely on Synergy 2.0 bug fixes. We will soon be focusing on new features for Synergy 2.1, which will include documentation. This is due in about 6 months. Thanks for your patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 On 1/31/2018 at 8:15 PM, Nick Bolton said: This is due in about 6 months. 6 months...? I think synergy 2.0 is now in beta. This is because 2.0 versions do not implement most of the key features(almost things are "coming soon") that stand out compared to version 1.8. I pay for it, but I do not think it is worth paying for it and use it now. It's hard to see clearly what the difference between the current 2.0 and 1.8 versions is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blistovmhz Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 Yea, I've got no idea. On paper, 2.0 is supposed to do more, but ends up doing less. I did confirm that any time ANY machine connected to my Synergy account, goes offline and comes back online, Synergy stops working on all clients. This is why I've been so screwed up. Every time I let one of my laptops go to sleep, or it leaves the house, all client services have to be restarted (which of course means connecting a keyboard to every windows machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality-X Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, blistovmhz said: Yea, I've got no idea. On paper, 2.0 is supposed to do more, but ends up doing less. I did confirm that any time ANY machine connected to my Synergy account, goes offline and comes back online, Synergy stops working on all clients. This is why I've been so screwed up. Every time I let one of my laptops go to sleep, or it leaves the house, all client services have to be restarted (which of course means connecting a keyboard to every windows machine. I think synergy 2 could be more useful if we had the option to manually configure it vs being forced to use the zero conf approach. IE default to zero conf, but have some advanced options to allow "power users" to set things up them selves. I would suspect the majority of users of this tool would fall into the latter category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blistovmhz Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 *le sigh*. So I've been trying to send a support request to inquire about being able to apply synergy 2.x pro licenses against 1.x, because 2.x is just unusable, but I already purchased a bunch of seats. Of COURSE their support ticket submission doesn't work. Guys! Come on! Incidentally, I'll just ask here since there doesn't seem to be any other way to submit requests. Can we have all our 2.x licenses be applicable to 1.x until 2.x becomes remotely stable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jml Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 That's an interesting idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blistovmhz Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 hour ago, jml said: That's an interesting idea! Sure would go a long way to alleviate the pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synergy Team Nick Bolton Posted February 7, 2018 Synergy Team Share Posted February 7, 2018 10 hours ago, blistovmhz said: Of COURSE their support ticket submission doesn't work. 1 When did you last try the support form? We re-implemented it a few days ago, so that bug should be fixed. Quote Incidentally, I'll just ask here since there doesn't seem to be any other way to submit requests. If you're still unable to use the support form, please email us: support@symless.com 10 hours ago, blistovmhz said: Can we have all our 2.x licenses be applicable to 1.x Yes, of course. Please contact customer service: service@symless.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWP13 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I purchased a license for 1.x long ago because I thought it was project worth supporting. However, that project has clearly become a commercial endeavor, that hasn't followed through on its commitments. These are the same sort of laughable responses that Symless and Nick Bolton have provided about Synergy 1.x bugs and issues. It's why I have not, and will not, purchase a license for 2.x; and neither should you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jml Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 You're certainly entitled to your opinions. However, there are a lot of us -- myself included -- who are successfully using 2.0 and used 1.x for a long time, and while I can't dispute that there's a number of significant issues, I have to take exception to your recommendation. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nick has certainly been flexible about refunding license fees for those who request it, and for converting licenses for those who request that, and I think it's a bit unfair to paint this "laughable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWP13 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 @JML Lol, are you the reading the same/similar, numerous, yet considerate, posts about the ridiculously poor quality of 2.x, that I am? Clearly, not. Perhaps you should put down the Kool-aid. I won't be purchasing 2.x because the thoughtful posts written by so many other users, serve as clear warning that it would be a waste of time and money. And as the responses from Symless and Nick Bolton remind me of similar responses to years-old bugs and issues in the 1.x forums, I think it's perfectly fair to state that Symless and Nick Bolton's responses are laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jml Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Again, your call. I don't mind spending a bit of money (and considerable time, as a volunteer moderator here) helping to improve a product I use daily. There are a lot of thoughtful posts here, and I know the team appreciates them all, even those simply expressing frustration. I'm frustrated too with some things in 2.x and have made that clear to the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synergy Team Nick Bolton Posted February 7, 2018 Synergy Team Share Posted February 7, 2018 I wonder which posts he thinks are laughable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blistovmhz Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 I'm sorta on the same page as @MWP13 here, though trying to be a little more diplomatic. I paid for 1.x for the same reasons. I wanted to see Synergy succeed. I paid for 2.x for the same reason, despite years of dealing with multiple bugs (many were rather obnoxious bugs, like the constant client hangups on the Linux side). I still want to see it succeed. But we're certainly well past the "hopes and dreams" stage. My experience with support since day one, has been that bugs don't typically get fixed, or if they do, there's no communication to that affect. I'm still waiting for my first bug report (this was probably from pre 1.x) to be addressed (I think it had to do with Linux client constantly disconnecting). I was told that the fix would be out in 3-6 months then as well, but it never was resolved. I get that at some point you have to just start over with a complete refactor and focus everything on that new release, but 2.x feels ... I want to say beta, but honestly it feels more pre-alpha with the complete lack of feedback from the UI, to the issues with zeroconf. That said, Nick and the team have always been pretty responsive about offering refunds. That's cool and all, but given there really aren't any other alternatives out there, I just want to see Synergy work, and from the looks of 2.x, all of the big issues are with regards to the zeroconf failing to zeroconf. I hate to invoke the argument from authority here, but I manage a fairly large development team, as well as am in charge of product development for a relatively large company. My response to the current issues with 2.x, would be to focus on the core functionality (the sharing of keyboard/mouse) before anything else. I've made recommendations before, and they've gone unanswered, but here's what I'd like to see, not in 6 months to never, but in the next few weeks as it really should be top priority (because you don't make sales on bad reviews, no matter how robust your marketing wank): 1. Start by giving us the ability to bypass the zeroconf entirely. I say this for a number of reasons. Zeroconf doesn't currently work reliably in any environment I've tested in, and sounds like I'm not alone. Even if it did, there is zero indication to the user (or the IT manager) how it's communicating with other clients. This is a massive security faux-pas and the only reason I allow it on my network is because I've got a long relationship with the software and I generally trust the developers aren't sneaky Russians after my butt-coinz. But no matter what, zeroconf has to work 100% perfectly every time, or it should not be the only method of configuration. And it should always come with technical documentation describing it's operation. There are too many possible network configurations to account for. 2.x is currently deciding that the lowest cost path between my two machines which are directly connected to each other, is through a VPN with 120ms latency. I had to perform logical host isolation on all clients to convince 2.x to stop doing this. This is nuts. I've had to firewall clients from each other, so I can run a simple application. 2. F**k it. I honestly don't care about anything else personally. 2.x seems to work great with the exception of it not working at all most of the time due to the broken zeroconf. Feature requests! Ability to disable zeroconf and manually configure connections. Task tray icon for Synergy client, with some visual indication of connected clients. That is all. Actually forget about 2. I don't care enough about it. My feature request is that zeroconf go away until it is stable, and even then have the option to disable it. @Nick Bolton, my guess is he's referring to major bugs being scheduled for a fix in "6-8 months". I've been using Synergy since the beginning, and while I'm sure this isn't true for everyone, I haven't seen a single bug I've encountered, be addressed and resolved. The default response to me has been that I can have a refund. TL;DR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jml Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Can't argue with those feature requests -- or most of your main points. Not TL at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synergy Team Nick Bolton Posted February 7, 2018 Synergy Team Share Posted February 7, 2018 On 2/7/2018 at 5:06 PM, blistovmhz said: my guess is he's referring to major bugs being scheduled for a fix in "6-8 months" The next round of features are due in about 6 months, but bug fixes for zeroconf are imminent. If all goes to plan, there should be a new update available to download tomorrow morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.