Sure, my request should be better titled “Sync local to local (including local drives)”
From my point of view,
Insync could benefit of much (much) more customers if took advantage of it’s powerful engine for a more generic syncing purpose, while it appears to me that the the 2nd usage is more powerful:
1.- Traditional legacy sync: not all files can be uploaded to a cloud drive (for privacy reasons) and not all of us would pay for the largest cloud drives (large contents won’t fit in). So I’d like to use insync for the typical local backup/sync scenario at home for those files non-cloud. It consist on replicating files from a
local base folder to another local path such as a USB drive (whether a plugable 128GB flash or a big 4 TB drive), a network drive (SMB share by the typical WiFi router) or simply another local folder or path (like these are my important files, I’d like to have a second copy just in case).
2.- Sync to potentially unlimited cloud providers: currently insync only supports API of Google Drive, OneDrive and Dropbox. However many cloud storage providers simply provide a virtual drive where you can see your files and place them there (think on the lifetime pCloud, ElephantDrive, Yandex, or whatever might come). It consists on replicating a
local base folder into that particular drive (like P: for pCloud), so the potential of
insync really gets unlimited powers.
insync has a strong advanced position on it’s filtering and selective syncing (and the UI as well), however is on disadvantage position regarding base generic syncing functionality compared to other traditional softwares (click here and see the comparison):
In my honest opinion, in order to have only one replication tool to deal with, I’d rather choose one of those basic opensource tools for replication (some support cloud already), arranging my files selectively, rather than having purchase a private tool for the cloud-only part (notice that I’m already one of your customers).
Please count with me for any clarification.