I would just like to point out that this is major release 5 and they're just now adding threading and consumption of filesystem events.
That's _great_ from the standpoint of launching a product. Putting off adding this complexity probably let them get to market sooner.
If I were releasing something like Arq, I would have to fight myself very, very hard to not add these to the 0.1 release. I don't know this space very well, but maybe there are several Arq-alikes who started earlier, but didn't release until later because it wasn't "done" yet, and they missed their chance.
But ARQ has always been fast, and figured out what it needed to backup pretty much instantly, and just did it's job and got out of the way - unlike things like spotlight/mdworker, or crashplan/backblaze, that are constantly thrashing my CPU and causing my fans to spin up.
From my uneducated perspective, having simple software that just worked was a bonus - who knows, maybe with the addition of threading, and consumption of filesystem events, ARQ is going to become crummy, and a door will be opened for someone else to write simple backup software without those features that gets the job done and doesn't bog up your computer. I guess we'll have to try Arq 5 for a few weeks to find out. Fingers Crossed.
For me personally having a history in this space these are two 1.0 features if releasing today. Back when they released 1.0 it might not have been obvious that these features were needed to differentiate.
But getting the single threaded path solid before adding parallelism is a good choice.
That's _great_ from the standpoint of launching a product. Putting off adding this complexity probably let them get to market sooner.
If I were releasing something like Arq, I would have to fight myself very, very hard to not add these to the 0.1 release. I don't know this space very well, but maybe there are several Arq-alikes who started earlier, but didn't release until later because it wasn't "done" yet, and they missed their chance.