Talk:Comparison of browser synchronizers
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
- 1 What is it?
- 2 preview
- 3 Third-party client API
- 4 Dead Link
- 5 Add SiteBar?
- 6 Can this include dictionaries?
- 7 Add Transmute
- 8 Add history to syncable items for Xmarks
- 9 Removed comment from article
- 10 Shouldn't we include Google's Chrome Sync?
- 11 Many defunct proprietary synchronizers
- 12 List should only contain notable entries and without prices
What is it?
This article currently has no explanation of what a "browser synchronizer" is or does, and has no links to any explanations. 22.214.171.124 02:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's now fixed. Because a browser synchronizer is one of the first pieces of software many people have a need for, it's now ranked of "high" importance. Of course not everyone knows they need one, but given how frequently people change browsers back and forth in 2012, it's hard to dispute that they should know that these exist.
this week/weekend I will totally rewrite the comparison. At the end it should be looking like this --> Comparison of feed aggregators <-- (created from me) a preview is given on User:Mabdul/sandbox3 mabdul 0=* 11:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Third-party client API
Information about any documentation available regarding third-party clients interacting with the server or service should be added somehow, not sure how though. For example, there's OAuth in combination with 'the Weave API' available for Mozilla's Weave. --Execvator (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You could also add SiteBar. It has its own Web-GUI and is compatible to many browsers. Development has started again on Teamforge. The latest version is compatible with SyncPlaces (XBEL interface). You can use the official server or download it.
I'm in no way affiliated with it (except that I use it).
Can this include dictionaries?
I find it particularly frustrating that I have to "add word" to the 5+ browsers I use. I'm wondering if this is value added to this page or if something else would be better able to handle it since it's basically just a file (like dropbox or something). I can do the research, I just want to know if this would be outside the scope of this page.
Transmute seemed to be able to sync locally, with no server require. Good for those privacy-oriented, or working in restrictive corporate environments. The free version does not sync, you need the for-cost version. Works with Chrome, Opera and the other usual suspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's also mentioned in some comparisons along with Xmarks and BookmarkSync. The capabilities of Transmute and Transmute Pro ought to be differentiated. Notable definitely for the privacy edge of not uploading the bookmarks for god-knows-who to read.
- Including Transmute though means including OS support as a column, as Transmute only runs on Windows. An advantage of web-based services is there's no OS. Alternatively this page can be retitled comparison of web-based browser synchronizers with the few other tools linked up front by name?
- That's how it's now dealt with, mentioning Transmute and Xmarks up front for their offline privacy advantages. Transmute does it by running offline on Windows. Xmarks does it via WebDAV or FTP, which is not OS-specific but obviously requires more technical sophistication. If there are other tools that allow you to bypass a "server" or "site", they should be noted in that paragraph up front.
- There's also a Chrome-specific tool called Stashmarks that could be mentioned, but it's new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Add history to syncable items for Xmarks
Xmarks has recently got an update and you can now sync browsing history for Firefox only. I'm not sure if I should change it from 'no' to 'yes' because Xmarks can't sync browsing history for other browsers yet.
Removed comment from article
I removed this comment from the article. "Please indicate whether these run under Windows 7. Many don't." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_browser_synchronizers&diff=prev&oldid=391252966
Shouldn't we include Google's Chrome Sync?
It synchronizes your bookmarks, passwords, preferences, themes, extensions, autofill, apps, and can encrypt all synced data. This has been available for a while. Is there a reason this hasn't been included yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Many defunct proprietary synchronizers
Lots of the proprietary services seem to be defunct, and not worthy of their own articlems. They perhaps belong in a different table at this point. It's very hard to tell which of these are popular (number of users, number of downloads, or other statistics that may be verifiable).
The Xmarks article already claims over fifteen million users use/d it. Evidently claims like this are not too controversial for Wikipedia.
List should only contain notable entries and without prices
For verification and maintenance purposes, the list should not include any entries without their own articles. Additionally, pricing information should be removed per WP:NOPRICES --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)