github-starred/barrier

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/debauchee/barrier.git synced 2026-05-15 14:16:02 -06:00

[GH-ISSUE #228] synergy[s] compatible symlink #186

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-05-05 05:33:29 -06:00 by gitea-mirror · 5 comments

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 05:33:29 -06:00

Owner

Originally created by @brianjmurrell on GitHub (Jan 17, 2019).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/debauchee/barrier/issues/228

Operating Systems

Server: Linux

Client: Linux

Barrier Version

2.1.2

Steps to reproduce bug

Install quicksynergy
Open quicksynergy
Configure a client in Share
Click Execute

Of course, this doesn't work. Quicksynergy is expecting to run synergys and synergyc. I wonder what you think of creating barriers -> synergys and barrierc -> synergyc symlinks in $prefix/bin/ for this kind of use-case.

Originally created by @brianjmurrell on GitHub (Jan 17, 2019). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/debauchee/barrier/issues/228 ### Operating Systems ### Server: Linux Client: Linux ### Barrier Version ### 2.1.2 ### Steps to reproduce bug ### 1. Install [quicksynergy](https://code.google.com/archive/p/quicksynergy/) 2. Open quicksynergy 3. Configure a client in Share 4. Click Execute Of course, this doesn't work. Quicksynergy is expecting to run `synergys` and `synergyc`. I wonder what you think of creating `barriers` -> `synergys` and `barrierc` -> `synergyc` symlinks in `$prefix/bin/` for this kind of use-case.

gitea-mirror closed this issue

2026-05-05 05:33:30 -06:00

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 05:33:33 -06:00

Author

Owner

@AdrianKoshka commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2019):

Quicksynergy says it's for configuring Synergy2? We're based off Synergy 1.x

@AdrianKoshka commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2019): Quicksynergy says it's for configuring Synergy2? We're based off Synergy 1.x

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 05:33:35 -06:00

Author

Owner

@brianjmurrell commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2019):

Quicksynergy says it's for configuring Synergy2? We're based off Synergy 1.x

That's just nomenclature. I use it with Synergy 1.8.6 all the time.

It just runs the command-line synergys and synergyc commands with a configuration that it creates.

Can we reopen this based on that?

@brianjmurrell commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2019): > Quicksynergy says it's for configuring Synergy2? We're based off Synergy 1.x That's just nomenclature. I use it with Synergy 1.8.6 all the time. It just runs the command-line `synergys` and `synergyc` commands with a configuration that it creates. Can we reopen this based on that?

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 05:33:38 -06:00

Author

Owner

@AdrianKoshka commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2019):

wonder what you think of creating barriers -> synergys and barrierc -> synergyc symlinks in $prefix/bin/ for this kind of use-case.

I'm not the lead dev, so I speak for myself only. I personally think you should get upstream to make it barrier-compatible. It's not a problem on our end.

@AdrianKoshka commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2019): > wonder what you think of creating barriers -> synergys and barrierc -> synergyc symlinks in $prefix/bin/ for this kind of use-case. I'm not the lead dev, so I speak for myself only. I personally think you should get upstream to make it barrier-compatible. It's not a problem on our end.

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 05:33:41 -06:00

Author

Owner

@mssalvatore commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019):

Based on the commit history, there may not be an upstream anymore. The last commit was August, 2010.

That doesn't make this a barrier issue. Someone could fork the project and make the required changes. Alternatively, if people voiced the shortcomings in the barrier GUI that lead them to use quicksynergy, maybe the barrier GUI could be improved and alleviate the need for quicksynergy.

@mssalvatore commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019): Based on [the commit history](https://code.google.com/archive/p/quicksynergy/source/default/commits), there may not be an upstream anymore. The last commit was August, 2010. That doesn't make this a barrier issue. Someone could fork the project and make the required changes. Alternatively, if people voiced the shortcomings in the barrier GUI that lead them to use quicksynergy, maybe the barrier GUI could be improved and alleviate the need for quicksynergy.

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 05:33:43 -06:00

Author

Owner

@brianjmurrell commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019):

Based on the commit history, there may not be an upstream anymore. The last commit was August, 2010.

That could mean nothing more than simply "it works", a.k.a. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", which is my experience with it. That is just to say, don't get trapped into the all too common assumption that a project has to continually creep features. In fact is shows excellent restraint to be able to be happy with the fact that one's project has met one's goals and it doesn't need to continually have stuff piled on.

That doesn't make this a barrier issue.

It never was strictly a barrier issue. It's just a barrier-trying-to-be-as-useful-as-it-can-as-a-successor-to-synergy issue.

Alternatively, if people voiced the shortcomings in the barrier GUI that lead them to use quicksynergy, maybe the barrier GUI could be improved and alleviate the need for quicksynergy.

I started using quicksynergy before there was a synergy (and thus barrier) GUI. That said, I do use the barrier GUI now.

@brianjmurrell commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019): > Based on the commit history, there may not be an upstream anymore. The last commit was August, 2010. That could mean nothing more than simply "it works", a.k.a. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", which is my experience with it. That is just to say, don't get trapped into the all too common assumption that a project has to continually creep features. In fact is shows excellent restraint to be able to be happy with the fact that one's project has met one's goals and it doesn't need to continually have stuff piled on. > That doesn't make this a barrier issue. It never was strictly a barrier issue. It's just a barrier-trying-to-be-as-useful-as-it-can-as-a-successor-to-synergy issue. > Alternatively, if people voiced the shortcomings in the barrier GUI that lead them to use quicksynergy, maybe the barrier GUI could be improved and alleviate the need for quicksynergy. I started using quicksynergy before there was a synergy (and thus barrier) GUI. That said, I do use the barrier GUI now.

No labels

Rows
Columns