[opensuse] Mac TimeMachine like backup for Linux?
Hi all, til present I used my own script for backups using DAR. A drawback is that it is rather slow with good compression, and is useless if the last slice is defect. Happened to me twice the last 5 years. On my MacBook I have come to appreciate TimeMachine. I use VirtualBox and openSuSE 11.4 on it as host. Works quite well. Mac OSX 10.6.5 is not as flexable, even with the whole development environment and MacPorts, ok for administering other Linux systems, but my virtual machines are always backed up comfortably by TimeMachine. I would like to make a TiemMachine like backup on my openSuSE Linux Raid 10 server, in development to a data server, onto a USB-2/eSATA 2TB external disk. I have seen there are apps like Backupper and Flyback. Anyone using an app that works with the ease of TimeMachine on linux. Any experiences and comments are welcome. :-) Al -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/06/11 13:53, LLLActive@GMX.Net wrote:
Hi all,
til present I used my own script for backups using DAR. A drawback is that it is rather slow with good compression, and is useless if the last slice is defect. Happened to me twice the last 5 years.
On my MacBook I have come to appreciate TimeMachine. I use VirtualBox and openSuSE 11.4 on it as host. Works quite well. Mac OSX 10.6.5 is not as flexable, even with the whole development environment and MacPorts, ok for administering other Linux systems, but my virtual machines are always backed up comfortably by TimeMachine.
I would like to make a TiemMachine like backup on my openSuSE Linux Raid 10 server, in development to a data server, onto a USB-2/eSATA 2TB external disk.
I have seen there are apps like Backupper and Flyback. Anyone using an app that works with the ease of TimeMachine on linux. Any experiences and comments are welcome.
:-) Al
My favourite is backintime ... automated rsync backups with hardlinks for unchanged files, plus a reasonable interface in both Gnome and KDE. No compression as such though. It's available in packman and I've been meaning to get it into Factory as well. Regards Tejas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 11 June 2011 14:53:42 LLLActive@GMX.Net wrote:
Hi all,
til present I used my own script for backups using DAR. A drawback is that it is rather slow with good compression, and is useless if the last slice is defect. Happened to me twice the last 5 years.
On my MacBook I have come to appreciate TimeMachine. I use VirtualBox and openSuSE 11.4 on it as host. Works quite well. Mac OSX 10.6.5 is not as flexable, even with the whole development environment and MacPorts, ok for administering other Linux systems, but my virtual machines are always backed up comfortably by TimeMachine.
I would like to make a TiemMachine like backup on my openSuSE Linux Raid 10 server, in development to a data server, onto a USB-2/eSATA 2TB external disk.
I have seen there are apps like Backupper and Flyback. Anyone using an app that works with the ease of TimeMachine on linux. Any experiences and comments are welcome.
Out of interest (because I have no experience with Mac), could you explain what Time Machine does that is different from a normal backup program - not counting the 3D GUI for restoring backups, which is pretty nice looking but not necessary for functionality My understanding is that Time Machine understands the applications, on some level, and is able to restore an application's data to a certain date (save point, presumably) - but does this really work in general across applications? Doesn't it require support from the applications? Otherwise, how would time machine be able to understand an application's internal data to the point where it can restore it exactly... I'd like to see something Time Machine-ish on linux, but I wonder if it is really possible to write something general, that doesn't require rewriting every application Normal backup programs are plentiful on linux though, so if you just need a backup, they are available Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
*This Reply from / Antwort von / Antwoord van:* LLLActive@GMX.Net - 2011-06-11 - 17:02:38 +0200 I also think (as Andrew does) that it is some rsync method. I'll look around and report back. Restore is pretty much like clicking on a file in the finder window inside the backup, and right click to restore. On the command level it can also be just copied with cp or as I often do with midnight commander (mc). It does not compress though, just file copies. Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Machine_%28Mac_OS%29 :-) Al *Original sent by / Original von / Oorspronklik van:* ajh@nitio.de - Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:05:05 +0200
On Saturday 11 June 2011 14:53:42 LLLActive@GMX.Net wrote:
Hi all,
til present I used my own script for backups using DAR. A drawback is that it is rather slow with good compression, and is useless if the last slice is defect. Happened to me twice the last 5 years.
On my MacBook I have come to appreciate TimeMachine. I use VirtualBox and openSuSE 11.4 on it as host. Works quite well. Mac OSX 10.6.5 is not as flexable, even with the whole development environment and MacPorts, ok for administering other Linux systems, but my virtual machines are always backed up comfortably by TimeMachine.
I would like to make a TiemMachine like backup on my openSuSE Linux Raid 10 server, in development to a data server, onto a USB-2/eSATA 2TB external disk.
I have seen there are apps like Backupper and Flyback. Anyone using an app that works with the ease of TimeMachine on linux. Any experiences and comments are welcome. Out of interest (because I have no experience with Mac), could you explain what Time Machine does that is different from a normal backup program - not counting the 3D GUI for restoring backups, which is pretty nice looking but not necessary for functionality
My understanding is that Time Machine understands the applications, on some level, and is able to restore an application's data to a certain date (save point, presumably) - but does this really work in general across applications? Doesn't it require support from the applications? Otherwise, how would time machine be able to understand an application's internal data to the point where it can restore it exactly...
I'd like to see something Time Machine-ish on linux, but I wonder if it is really possible to write something general, that doesn't require rewriting every application
Normal backup programs are plentiful on linux though, so if you just need a backup, they are available
Anders
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 11 June 2011 17:28:53 LLLActive@GMX.Net wrote:
*This Reply from / Antwort von / Antwoord van:* LLLActive@GMX.Net - 2011-06-11 - 17:02:38 +0200
I also think (as Andrew does) that it is some rsync method. I'll look around and report back. Restore is pretty much like clicking on a file in the finder window inside the backup, and right click to restore. On the command level it can also be just copied with cp or as I often do with midnight commander (mc). It does not compress though, just file copies.
hm, ok, so there is no real magic, except in the GUI that it reproduces what the application looked like with that backup restored. I guess that means that we can do what it does already, and that someone just needs to write a nifty GUI for it. I have looked at several nice backup tools in the past, and while they have mostly been good and useful, none have had a really nice user interface, and the comment in wikipedia about being able to restore from backup during initial install sounds extremely cool. Sort of an alternative to a bare-metal restore Now I'm going to look at backintime that Tejas talked about. That one is new to me Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
*Original sent by / Original von / Oorspronklik van:* ajh@nitio.de - Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:08:37 +0200
*This Reply from / Antwort von / Antwoord van:* LLLActive@GMX.Net - 2011-06-11 - 17:02:38 +0200
I also think (as Andrew does) that it is some rsync method. I'll look around and report back. Restore is pretty much like clicking on a file in the finder window inside the backup, and right click to restore. On the command level it can also be just copied with cp or as I often do with midnight commander (mc). It does not compress though, just file copies. hm, ok, so there is no real magic, except in the GUI that it reproduces what
On Saturday 11 June 2011 17:28:53 LLLActive@GMX.Net wrote: the application looked like with that backup restored.
I guess that means that we can do what it does already, and that someone just needs to write a nifty GUI for it. I have looked at several nice backup tools in the past, and while they have mostly been good and useful, none have had a really nice user interface, and the comment in wikipedia about being able to restore from backup during initial install sounds extremely cool. Sort of an alternative to a bare-metal restore
Now I'm going to look at backintime that Tejas talked about. That one is new to me
*This Reply from / Antwort von / Antwoord van:* LLLActive@GMX.Net - 2011-06-11 - 18:50:39 +0200 It is standard in openSuSE 11.4 under software installable. I am also checking it out in the next days :-) Al -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
*This Reply from / Antwort von / Antwoord van:* LLLActive@GMX.Net - 2011-06-16 - 01:58:55 +0200 Just for the interest, I actually restored the complete directory for Thunderbird from the Mac's TimeMachine usb external drive by just copying the directory under openSuSE's .thunderbird. Then I renamed the directory from Thunderbird to .thunderbird and chown and chmod it to the new user on a new box. As I started Thunderbird, some mail accounts did not have its normal structure underneath it, and in these accounts the old mails were gone. It seemed to be a differential backup, but if I could make a new full backup, then maybe the restore by hand will work. I made a copy of the directory on an external HDD, copied it to the user's home directory, and made the above mentioned changes. Thunderbird took about a minute to start, then I had a complete duplicate that was on the Mac. After the initial start, it starts normally. I am doing this mail on the new system, all the other mails were from the Mac. I am trying the "System Backup" in YaST - System. Anyone used it before? It seems to back up partitions and tables as well as modified files of packages are searched for backup. I will report when it is done. @Anders: tried backintime yet? Al *Original sent by / Original von / Oorspronklik van:* ajh@nitio.de - Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:08:37 +0200
*This Reply from / Antwort von / Antwoord van:* LLLActive@GMX.Net - 2011-06-11 - 17:02:38 +0200
I also think (as Andrew does) that it is some rsync method. I'll look around and report back. Restore is pretty much like clicking on a file in the finder window inside the backup, and right click to restore. On the command level it can also be just copied with cp or as I often do with midnight commander (mc). It does not compress though, just file copies. hm, ok, so there is no real magic, except in the GUI that it reproduces what
On Saturday 11 June 2011 17:28:53 LLLActive@GMX.Net wrote: the application looked like with that backup restored.
I guess that means that we can do what it does already, and that someone just needs to write a nifty GUI for it. I have looked at several nice backup tools in the past, and while they have mostly been good and useful, none have had a really nice user interface, and the comment in wikipedia about being able to restore from backup during initial install sounds extremely cool. Sort of an alternative to a bare-metal restore
Now I'm going to look at backintime that Tejas talked about. That one is new to me
Anders
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Jun 11, 2011, at 18:08 , Anders Johansson wrote:
hm, ok, so there is no real magic, except in the GUI that it reproduces what the application looked like with that backup restored.
Well, Time Machine does use hard links to unchanged directories, and to reproduce that on Linux would -- as far as I know -- require changes in the kernel. I am not sure if TM's strategy of doing one "full" backup every hour is feasible without hard-linked directories. A. -- Ansgar Esztermann DV-Systemadministration Max-Planck-Institut für biophysikalische Chemie, Abteilung 105 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 16/06/11 10:50, Esztermann, Ansgar wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 18:08 , Anders Johansson wrote:
hm, ok, so there is no real magic, except in the GUI that it reproduces what the application looked like with that backup restored. Well, Time Machine does use hard links to unchanged directories, and to reproduce that on Linux would -- as far as I know -- require changes in the kernel. I am not sure if TM's strategy of doing one "full" backup every hour is feasible without hard-linked directories.
A.
Umm not true at all, many linux backup programs do this very easily. Basically what you do is copy the old backup using hardlinks, then use rsync to get any changed files. Then every backup appears complete despite only taking the space of a differential backup. Backintime (which i've already recommended in this thread, it's very good) offers this and pretty much all the features of Time Machine (including a nice, though not windows flying through space, GUI). Regards, Tejas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Anders Johansson wrote:
Out of interest (because I have no experience with Mac), could you explain what Time Machine does that is different from a normal backup program - not counting the 3D GUI for restoring backups, which is pretty nice looking but not necessary for functionality
Never used time machine, but your comment about a GUI not being necessary for restoring files is akin to saying there's no need for user's to have a 'desktop' on computers -- they can just use a console. Any idiot knows that's complete crap. The interface on something is what can make or break something all other things being equal. If you have a cumbersome awkward or difficult to use interface, it won't get used or be usable. If you have one that makes it a breeze, it opens up **new paradigms** in usage. Can you imagine doing video processing if we still had an interface of punched cards? Sure, a Video screen is nice, but punched cards would let you do it all. As for "3D" -- I wasn't aware the MAC supported NVIDIA's 3-D goggles nor that it's time-machine required them. Though an appearance of 3D for browsing files (a file hierarchy is usually displayed as some type of tree -- a 2D diagram), then having the appearance of 3 dimensions could be useful for browsing forward or backward in time. I have complete backups on linux using the standard 'xfsdump' utils and a modified tower of hanoi dump schedule, BUT browsing those backups, or pulling files out randomly, or being able to see all the versions of a file...that would be nice. I even let Windows-Backup have extra space, so it can keep copies of the files it will keep copies of (but it won't keep copies of anything on my linux box, as it is 'remote')....But for the files it does, I can see multiple copies in the file props...which is nice for single files, but unusable for backup sets. So **PLEASE** don't thing that a good GUI can't be a make-or-break deal. So much in this life is about ***perceptions*** -- not facts. Most engineers don't get this, which is there is the stereotype of engineers being socially clueless.
Normal backup programs are plentiful on linux though, so if you just need a backup, they are available
Not any good ones with a GUI that are also 'fast', and that backup all the ACL's, extended attrs, etc. of modern file systems. 'star' (a tar like prog) has good backup functionality (supports ACLS's XATTRS, all the 'tar' versions, compression, but it's command line only. xfsdump could be alot better if it kept full file inventories ... but backup progs that are "plentiful", that support modern file system semantics? Not my experience. Linda -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 12 June 2011 06:09:41 Linda Walsh wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
Out of interest (because I have no experience with Mac), could you explain what Time Machine does that is different from a normal backup program - not counting the 3D GUI for restoring backups, which is pretty nice looking but not necessary for functionality
---- Never used time machine, but your comment about a GUI not being necessary for restoring files is akin to saying there's no need for user's to have a 'desktop' on computers -- they can just use a console.
Any idiot knows that's complete crap.
Well, I was referring to the 3D GUI, not GUI in general. I have seen demos of Time Machine, and they have windows flying through space like a game
The interface on something is what can make or break something all other things being equal. If you have a cumbersome awkward or difficult to use interface, it won't get used or be usable.
If you have one that makes it a breeze, it opens up **new paradigms** in usage.
Can you imagine doing video processing if we still had an interface of punched cards?
Sure, a Video screen is nice, but punched cards would let you do it all.
I didn't actually mean there shouldn't be a GUI. If you had read my second email, I said we have the functionality, so now all that remains is that someone writes a neat GUI for it. I completely agree that a good GUI is important, but the core functionality must come first. For example, you can't start a GUI from cron, and most backup programs aren't designed to be run manually. The GUI usually comes in when you want to restore things If we already have the functionality, a GUI can (should) be put on top of it to make it easier to use, but if we don't even have the functionality we'd need to write the whole thing from scratch All I meant was that if we have the core functionality of Time Machine, then we're not that far away from having the whole thing.
As for "3D" -- I wasn't aware the MAC supported NVIDIA's 3-D goggles nor that it's time-machine required them. Though an appearance of 3D for browsing files (a file hierarchy is usually displayed as some type of tree -- a 2D diagram), then having the appearance of 3 dimensions could be useful for browsing forward or backward in time.
It's not 3D like Avatar, it's 3D like a first person shooter. Windows flying through space
'star' (a tar like prog) has good backup functionality (supports ACLS's XATTRS, all the 'tar' versions, compression, but it's command line only. xfsdump could be alot better if it kept full file inventories ... but backup progs that are "plentiful", that support modern file system semantics? Not my experience.
Command line backup utilities are indeed plentiful. rsync, tar (I have had issues with star, it doesn't always back up everything, there are bugs in it), but I completely agree that we need a nice GUI for restoring, for selecting which files to restore. You read my email as a rant against GUIs, but that is not what I intended. I was just taking stock of what we had, not what we needed Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
*This Reply from / Antwort von / Antwoord van:* LLLActive@GMX.Net - 2011-06-12 - 15:12:45 +0200 Anders, you are moving the idea in the right direction. Yes, functionality is top priority, but then please a super GUI for the users to get it into the general market - a Jobs/Apple and Ubuntu principle? .... *Original sent by / Original von / Oorspronklik van:* ajh@nitio.de - Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:50:23 +0200
On Sunday 12 June 2011 06:09:41 Linda Walsh wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
Out of interest (because I have no experience with Mac), could you explain what Time Machine does that is different from a normal backup program - not counting the 3D GUI for restoring backups, which is pretty nice looking but not necessary for functionality
Never used time machine, but your comment about a GUI not being necessary for restoring files is akin to saying there's no need for user's to have a 'desktop' on computers -- they can just use a console.
Any idiot knows that's complete crap. Well, I was referring to the 3D GUI, not GUI in general. I have seen demos of Time Machine, and they have windows flying through space like a game
The interface on something is what can make or break something all other things being equal. If you have a cumbersome awkward or difficult to use interface, it won't get used or be usable.
If you have one that makes it a breeze, it opens up **new paradigms** in usage.
Can you imagine doing video processing if we still had an interface of punched cards?
Sure, a Video screen is nice, but punched cards would let you do it all. I didn't actually mean there shouldn't be a GUI. If you had read my second email, I said we have the functionality, so now all that remains is that someone writes a neat GUI for it. I completely agree that a good GUI is important, but the core functionality must come first. For example, you can't start a GUI from cron, and most backup programs aren't designed to be run manually. The GUI usually comes in when you want to restore things
If we already have the functionality, a GUI can (should) be put on top of it to make it easier to use, but if we don't even have the functionality we'd need to write the whole thing from scratch
All I meant was that if we have the core functionality of Time Machine, then we're not that far away from having the whole thing.
As for "3D" -- I wasn't aware the MAC supported NVIDIA's 3-D goggles nor that it's time-machine required them. Though an appearance of 3D for browsing files (a file hierarchy is usually displayed as some type of tree -- a 2D diagram), then having the appearance of 3 dimensions could be useful for browsing forward or backward in time. It's not 3D like Avatar, it's 3D like a first person shooter. Windows flying through space
'star' (a tar like prog) has good backup functionality (supports ACLS's XATTRS, all the 'tar' versions, compression, but it's command line only. xfsdump could be alot better if it kept full file inventories ... but backup progs that are "plentiful", that support modern file system semantics? Not my experience. Command line backup utilities are indeed plentiful. rsync, tar (I have had issues with star, it doesn't always back up everything, there are bugs in it), but I completely agree that we need a nice GUI for restoring, for selecting which files to restore. You read my email as a rant against GUIs, but that is not what I intended. I was just taking stock of what we had, not what we needed
Anders
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Anders Johansson said the following on 06/12/2011 08:50 AM:
Command line backup utilities are indeed plentiful. rsync, tar (I have had issues with star, it doesn't always back up everything, there are bugs in it), but I completely agree that we need a nice GUI for restoring, for selecting which files to restore. You read my email as a rant against GUIs, but that is not what I intended. I was just taking stock of what we had, not what we needed
Consider the command line: a type such as "... directory/ *" for "... directory/*" when backing up means you've backed up too much, perhaps run out of 'tape". But when restoring its disastrous! I've seen systems destroyed and critical work list due to that. I'm not saying GUI is fool-proof. I've seen badly designed GUIs - in essence they only let the user do what the designer thinks the user should be doing, not necessarily what the user wants or could do with a command line. I've seen GUIs that lead the user into error. I've seen GUIs that are prone to certain types of error or which fail to report errors (lots of the latter!) But in this instance a GUI that does point-and-click on what files you want restored is probably a good thing. It is more probably a good thing if you want only a few very specific files restored. Its an every greater GoodThing(tm) when you can't remember their names or they have oddball spelling or you want to look inside them first. But for backups, especially backups using CRON, the command line is a GoodThing(tm) -- Context is Everything -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Out of interest (because I have no experience with Mac), could you explain what Time Machine does that is different from a normal backup program - not counting the 3D GUI for restoring backups, which is pretty nice looking but not necessary for functionality
To be honest there is no Windows "system restore" or like you said mac "time machine" like backup program on any linux distro I've seen. I mean there are decent backup programs like rsync,tar,etc.. and I'm sure there are plenty with decent gui's(not that I've seen any distro other than opensuse with they yast module ship with one). but they have to be set manually by the user. or the user has to search for them and install them and their functionality is simply backing up select files/directories. what makes windows "system restore" different is that it's usually on by default, when you make any major changes you can simply create a restore point (don't have to pick any files,directories,etc...) and the system will automatically create a backup of all essential system files. It would be nice if we could have the same for opensuse. where users simply create restore points and we have preset list of binary files, configuration files (like for example /usr/bin /etc,....and a users ~/.kde4,etc....) and they all get backed up either when a user creates a restore point or when major system upgrades are done they system will automatically create a restore point. and programs can opt to have the system back them up by somehow telling the system "these are my binaries and here is where i store my configuration,etc..." I've broken my system plenty of times and system upgrades have rendered my system unusable ever since opensuse 11.2 and I've had to manually fix the issues. currently I have two opensuse installations and one of them acts like a "restore point" where if anything goes wrong with my system it has the last working setup of opensuse I've had and I simply copy over the files from that installation if anything gets really messed up. Linux desperately needs a decent usable backup interface. sure we can write shell scripts and cron but your average desktop user doesn't know how to. and I do think they yast backup module thingy is awsome. it just isn't as simple and to the point as windows system restore or mac time machine. and as far as guis are concerned ,most people don't care if windows are flying at you or you have a typical windows with typical buttons,radio,etc... or a web interface , since they won't create restore points frequently enough to care. P.S.: It's also be a nice option to have if we have a boot option just like fail-safe option but where users can boot to to restore their backups when the system is broken. and in opensuse 11.2 there was this very handy option on the cd/dvd where you can boot to it and it'll detect any anomalies on your system or broken packages,etc... and automatically fix them, it'd be handy to have that as a boot option on the grub menu too. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Anders Johansson wrote:
For example, you can't start a GUI from cron, and most backup programs aren't designed to be run manually. The GUI usually comes in when you want to restore things
Something like 'timemachine' or similar, would have to be run off of something like famd or similar. You'd need notifications of when files changed so you could make a new copy. But cron might do the dailies... then again, it might be a standalone daemon running to control the backups, but also handle asynchronous notifications of file changes during the backup. It's so much a shame that volume snapshots can't be somehow archived and stored more efficiently, since combined with some browsing system like one can use through samba, one can restore previous versions of files that are stored in snapshots -- now if only they could be stored for months at a time...
If we already have the functionality...
Do we? I'm not sure of anything on linux that does the above. And while somethign Q&D could be thrown together, one would want bullet-proof....
All I meant was that if we have the core functionality of Time Machine, then we're not that far away from having the whole thing.
I don't know of anything similar for general purposes.... .
Command line backup utilities are indeed plentiful. rsync, tar (I have had issues with star, it doesn't always back up everything, there are bugs in it),
--- Really? Haven't run into them. seemed to copy everything including kitchen sink and was much faster than rsync. That's my issue w/rsync -- it's speed is abysmal for what it does, when used on local file systems or local GbLAN's...
but I completely agree that we need a nice GUI for restoring, for selecting which files to restore. You read my email as a rant against GUIs, but that is not what I intended. I was just taking stock of what we had, not what we needed
Sorry, I guess given that GUI's are not my expertise, I know them to be a make or break feature on products, and didn't want any of us to fall into the old engineering mindset of cmdline is enough (even though it's 'sufficient'... *ahem* :-)). linda -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
*This Reply from / Antwort von / Antwoord van:* LLLActive@GMX.Net - 2011-06-12 - 13:53:59 -0700 Hi Linda, I am very tempted to respond to your ideas, because I as engineer in broadcasting and since 1980 using information technology, constantly came up against the purists and the belief that the engineer knows what the user needs. That is also what a user gets from the bad engineer. As you say, apps are made or are left by the wayside, depending on usability. Only a few users and specialists can and prefer to use command line environments, me too on servers, but most users prefer a good simple effective GUI. I used a lot of scripts for backups with tar and dar, but enjoyed the ease of scanning backups and restore files with a GUI like KDar, and as the thread started, Mac's TimeMachine. This is also the success of Macs. My son is a media designer. He and all his friends have Mac's just because of the successful Mac OSX GUI's. (The reason I got a Mac was that one of them got herself a new Macbook Pro, and they all bought the old Macbook and gave it to me for my 55th). Let most Mac apps be propriety if Apple pleases (which I also find nausiating); but I can dig behind it into the Darwin kernel Linux world and do 95% of the stuff I have on opensource Linux with the development environment and MacPorts. I also have Sun's VirtualBox (now Oracle :-(( ) with openSuSE 11.4 and Win7 on the upgraded old white Macbook with 4GB memory and 500GB HDD; all nicely backed up by TimeMachine on an external USB 500GB 2,5" drive. The reason that most media specialists go for Mac, is it's usability, and the loss for Linux apps that can do all the stuff a Mac does, but only if you are a geek. In the end I think we should not become too religious about the pro and cons of GUI's - just making the power of Linux available also to non-geeks will help Linux to become the most powerful tool in modern telecom/information systems. Mac's file system is for instance a serious drawback, and its incompatibility with modern Linux (*nix) file systems frustrates me often when my data is on a ext4 file system for example. I hate using fat32 just for compatibility reasons between all OS's. Another reason is data security on M$ file system (attempts) and encrypted volumes I now use for data on mobile systems (I never mix data and OS volumes). All this, and much more I can get excited about, is what draws me to a Mac, and strangely enough to Gnome, in stead of the eye candy of KDE 4. It is the slight, tendency to the minimalistic, that is effective. Even Win7 is catching on to the Gnome like desktop layout. I used to use KDE 3 & 4 exclusively. Now I find Mac, Gnome and Win7 are closer to one another; I even convinced totally Windows users to use Gnome and openSuSE 11.x. The latest was a girl friend who now got a MacBook Pro, because it was so similar to her Ubuntu she got from me 3 years ago. As these desktops seem to become more and more similar, I believe the most efficient GUI will survive on the desktop - Linux will keep expanding in the server rooms with slight Gnome Gui's (like SLES and others) or without Gui altogether - and not the best technology. Remember the X86 - 6800 (Intel- Motorola CPU) case, the Windows - DESQview/TopView case, and many best technologies that lost to the best marketers. Pardon for my passionate response, but I have experienced such issues for such a long time now. As you say, and I used to be as direct and a little harsh as you say: **PLEASE** don't thin(k) that a good GUI can't be a make-or-break deal. So much in this life is about ***perceptions*** -- not facts. Most engineers don't get this, which is there is the stereotype of engineers being socially clueless. I support your plea. However, good engineers today also realise the importance of usability of technology by non-geek users, the reason of the success of Mac and Ubuntu the last 5 years. The persistence of the 'engineer knows what users want' mentality is perhaps the single most important reason that M$ still exists, and that all other Linux distros besides Ubuntu still struggle to enter the broad desktop market. I found that after an initial use of Ubuntu for a year or so, I can successfully update my friends' Ubuntu to the superior new openSuSE 11.X with Gnome distro. :-) Al *Original sent by / Original von / Oorspronklik van:* suse@tlinx.org - Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:41 -0700
Anders Johansson wrote:
Out of interest (because I have no experience with Mac), could you explain what Time Machine does that is different from a normal backup program - not counting the 3D GUI for restoring backups, which is pretty nice looking but not necessary for functionality
Never used time machine, but your comment about a GUI not being necessary for restoring files is akin to saying there's no need for user's to have a 'desktop' on computers -- they can just use a console.
Any idiot knows that's complete crap.
The interface on something is what can make or break something all other things being equal. If you have a cumbersome awkward or difficult to use interface, it won't get used or be usable.
If you have one that makes it a breeze, it opens up **new paradigms** in usage. Can you imagine doing video processing if we still had an interface of punched cards?
Sure, a Video screen is nice, but punched cards would let you do it all.
As for "3D" -- I wasn't aware the MAC supported NVIDIA's 3-D goggles nor that it's time-machine required them. Though an appearance of 3D for browsing files (a file hierarchy is usually displayed as some type of tree -- a 2D diagram), then having the appearance of 3 dimensions could be useful for browsing forward or backward in time.
I have complete backups on linux using the standard 'xfsdump' utils and a modified tower of hanoi dump schedule, BUT browsing those backups, or pulling files out randomly, or being able to see all the versions of a file...that would be nice.
I even let Windows-Backup have extra space, so it can keep copies of the files it will keep copies of (but it won't keep copies of anything on my linux box, as it is 'remote')....But for the files it does, I can see multiple copies in the file props...which is nice for single files, but unusable for backup sets.
So **PLEASE** don't thing that a good GUI can't be a make-or-break deal. So much in this life is about ***perceptions*** -- not facts. Most engineers don't get this, which is there is the stereotype of engineers being socially clueless.
Normal backup programs are plentiful on linux though, so if you just need a backup, they are available
Not any good ones with a GUI that are also 'fast', and that backup all the ACL's, extended attrs, etc. of modern file systems.
'star' (a tar like prog) has good backup functionality (supports ACLS's XATTRS, all the 'tar' versions, compression, but it's command line only. xfsdump could be alot better if it kept full file inventories ... but backup progs that are "plentiful", that support modern file system semantics? Not my experience.
Linda
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (7)
-
Anders Johansson -
Anton Aylward -
Esztermann, Ansgar -
Linda Walsh -
LLLActive＠GMX.Net -
michael getachew -
Tejas Guruswamy