On Sun, 27 Sep 2015, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 09/27/2015 12:10 PM, Xen wrote:
That doesn't mean every backup strategy is just as sound.
It doesn't need to be.
I have a one line backup any one of my less and 5G partitions to 'the cloud' using rsync. That got a few bells and whistles added so it has some defaults and looks at environment variables.
Its 'sound' as long as *I* am using it, but is a piece of scrap to anyone else. personal 'oneliners' are like that.
I was talking about something more usuable by more people. See, the problem I mentioned earlier is that everyone needs to write his own one-liners, and they are never quite as good as if a few people would sit down and wrote a different thing that served more people. Anything that involves more development can also become a better product. I write better as a form of saying that many designs just require more work. Incremental improvement doesn't just always cut it, often not at all. Naturally as a single person when faced with this need for a solution, your only real attractive choice is to do what you say, to build those "one liners". and maybe you will end up in the position where you say: okay, enough is enough, I want something GOOD now.
See, in Linux it is often easier to build a weak system on existing tools that seem to do the job, than it is to really build something good but that would require more development.
No "seems" about it. A lot of the time you don't need something sophisticated. And when you do, you can evolve it. That's how many of the more 'complex' applications came about. "A minimis incipe"
I would agree with the evolving thing but the only reason you would seem to accept (yes, seem) a minimal solution is because a non-minimal solution (that still agrees with you) is out of reach. And because more sophisticated tools often don't exist, or better practices, or whatever, you are forced to develop that thing on your own. But if you start out from a primitive state, you cannot achieve much. If you start out from a more advanced state, what you can create is much greater. I just have an issue with having to start out from scratch, almost.
Strike "bad" from that. "Adequate" and "sufficient unto the job at hand" is very far from "bad". Each day has its own problems. If a minimalist solution, a quick-and-dirty does the job, you can get on with the real issues, the real pressing problems. Which are more likely to be people problems than technical problems.
I don't find many of the stuff we would talk about here (including my own contraptions) really much beyond "adequate for now given that I cannot achieve anything better anyway". It still might end up being a time waster of some sort, because of the primitive quality or nature or level of progress, of it. If you go about each day as its own problems.... That is like knowing ahead of time that you need to build a house or have a house ready, but instead of making a blueprint, you are just going to accept living in a hut first, and then gradually improving the hut. That is fine if you are really starting out with nothing (you need a place to live) but in the world we live in we often don't need to. We are often not starting out from near scratch. If you did have the "luxury" of living in another house until your project would finish completion, you would use the time you have to build a great house right from the get go instead of evolving it from something supremely primitive in small steps. And as aa result build something much greater with less time. Because your evolved house/hut might still be a patchwork and would not have any elegant design because you needed to make do with what you had at every step.
In short, yes; in reality it depends on the version of tar/cpio you use. RTFM.
That's not the real question I asked. Also I asked you, so there is no need to "RTFM". I thought that acronym had diseased by now but I guess you are an old-living specimen ;-). The real question I asked was whether you'd have a problem if the sparseness needed to be restored from TAR. Yes and I've seen TAR options for sparseness probably. No need to read the manual for something I am not interested in right now (thank you very much).
You're not paying attention. It may be sound and well thought out *FOR* *MY* *PERSONAL* USE*. It's just not packaged and generalized for the world at large.
That's just because you have to build your own tools. I don't think you are paying attention to what I mean, you cunt. I mean that more sophisticated tools can be created when using more planning, but it requires that you don't have to fight off every day's disaster or solve some sort of survival game every day of your life. The whole of Linux seems to be such a thing these days that has seen no aforethought design. It just evolved but nobody really thought about it. It was just the planning of one day at a time; in a sense planning no more than one day ahead. And the end result, thus far, is what I call UGLY. The end result thus far is more of a battle-scarred plains with smoke billowing and tears in the ground, bodies everywhere, rather than some beautiful forest. I would never compare Linux to a beautiful forest. It is dark, the sun doesn't shine, there is smoke in the air. If any area of WoW would need to compare to it, it would be Burning Steppes/Searing Gorge. If you play a multi-user-dungeon text-based without a map it means you end up in a room one room at a time and can never really look ahead. You never really know where you are for lack of oversight. That is the same feeling. Having more oversight requires a bigger or more integrated design of the system. It requires something that in a sense requires a different stage of design versus implementation/development. It requires projecting a vision ahead of time. VISION. Much of Linux/Unix is completetly void of any VISION that looks ahead more than 5 meters. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org