| |||||||||||||
Why do user agent developers hate rsync?Why do user agent developers hate rsync?Posted Jun 26, 2012 21:19 UTC (Tue) by bjartur (subscriber, #67801)Parent article: Firefox for Android may become your favorite mobile browser (ars technica)
What about those who would like to use Chromium on their desktops and Firefox on Android? Would it not be simpler to just translate the History file to places.sqlite, and rsync places.sqlite and cookies.txt to the handheld? With paired Bluetooth devices, that could happen every time the devices are in range.
If only browsers could standardize on formats for these things. If I were an Android user I'd probably extend Chromium myself (if I could figure out how to build it, that is ;).
(Log in to post comments)
Why do user agent developers hate rsync? Posted Jun 26, 2012 21:59 UTC (Tue) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
That would break if users ever added bookmarks or cookies on the mobile device. Firefox Sync works in both directions (or N directions, since you can have an arbitrary number of devices).
Why do user agent developers hate rsync? Posted Jun 27, 2012 0:30 UTC (Wed) by khc (subscriber, #45209) [Link]
in practice, firefox sync seems to only show me open tabs from the last device. So if I have 3 devices with Sync, I can't see the tabs from the LRU device.
Why do user agent developers hate rsync? Posted Jun 28, 2012 10:27 UTC (Thu) by jku (subscriber, #42379) [Link]
First, handling changes without a server would be challenging even for two devices. For more than that it will be conflict management hell. Second, bluetooth doesn't seem to be useful for the use case "X happens every time the devices are in range".
The service-based solution really is better in this case. I don't think there's anything that prevents Chromium from implementing the Firefox sync client.
|
|||||||||||||