> Michael Stowe wrote at about 15:48:17 -0500 on Monday, August 31, 2009:
> >
> > > > In other words, I'd suggest that working around the limitations of
> your
> > > > consumer-grade NAS is probably beyond the scope of any backup
> system.
> > >
> > > How nice of you. And please remind me of all the code you have
> > > contributed to BackupPC and to this user group...
> >
> > I don't think a discussion of scope really merited an ad hominem
> attack.
> > Personally, I think engaging in personal attacks weakens your
> arguments.
>
> Perhaps next time don't cut out the critical preceding quote where you
> implied
> that my usage was "fringe". My answer makes sense a lot more sense in
> that context and comes across as less ad hominem.
Well, then, I'll quote it:
"While I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call a consumer NAS a fringe case,
it's certainly limits your options."
My typo aside, I don't think a reasonable person could glean from that
that a) I'm calling consumer NAS a fringe case, or b) that a reasonable
response to this is to attack me or my contributions.
Frankly, I'm not sure why it appears to be such an emotionally charged
issue, and I can't imagine an optimal technical solution resulting from
rage or personal attacks. And regardless of how you manage to read or
misread a member's comments, I shall have to respectfully ask you to keep
it civil. There's no reason to get personal or unprofessional.
> Is it self-evident that a BackupPC tree is difficult to
> copy/move/resize if not on a dedicated filesystem?
No, but that's quite different from what you were suggesting earlier --
nor, frankly, is a dedicated filesystem really the issue, but it is a
large number of directory entries making several styles of file copying
impractical.
> You haven't even begun to listen or to read through the archives. It
> is not my job to rehash every past long and informative discussion for
> the benefit of newbies who prefer to argue and nitpick rather than to
> educate themselves on past discussions.
You may argue about the context, but are you attempting to use the word
"newbies" in something other than an insulting context?
If the discussion was already had and settled, then why rehash only part
of it? Why, frankly, rehash any of it?
> There has been a lot of discussion of the pros-and-cons. I suggest you
> educate yourself on that first before shooting.
I can't imagine how this would help anything. I'm quite familiar with
BackupPC, as well as databases and file systems.
> To be fair, the
> discussions have not progressed beyond laying out general pros-and-cons
> -- i.e., no one has yet to start designing a specific solution. Though
> I think few would argue that one is possible with the caveat that
> there are pros-and-cons to different approaches and that different
> users value them differently. That being said, I believe that there is
> a lot of value to the discussion so far in that it outlines potential
> directions for future development whether or not they are ever fully
> pursued.
>
> In all seriousness, I suggest that you delve into the code and in
> particular the handling of attrib files and you will see that it is
> not all so neat-and-clean as creating hard links.
I'm quite familiar with it, and I'm just not sure where you're going with
this. What is the problem with the handling of attrib files that needs to
be solved?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
|
