Looks like the old "your mileage may vary" debate. I've tried Ghost and it didn't work. It backed up the drive as advertised but wouldn't put it back on the same drive. It decided that the drive had suddenly become too small...actually, it decided that the amount of data that had been backed up was many times greater than the actual amount. It worked just fine on windows drives though. The verison I used also didn't want anything to do with journalling file systems. It couldn't read them at all. Gerry On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, jazzyjay_30 wrote:
WWOOWWW>>> I can't follow this guys logic.. I have used ghost ever since I can remember it has always performed as advertised...With the latest release I have personally used it to remotely deploy over 700 windows 2000 systems... I also used it to re-invent a couple of file and print servers ( Redhat 7.2 and Suse 7.2 pro..) So I know it works as advertised...
-----Original Message----- From: phil [mailto:phil@osbtown.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:47 PM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Ghost... (Red Flag should go up: Symantec sux) - Opinion
Greetings Michael,
I'd be careful with ghost, I read an article in InfoWorld Magazine's "The Gripe Line" (DEC 17th, 2001 Issue 51 page 49) called "A Ghost of a chance - Users should expect to get the software they bargained for not a skeleton of a familiar, more robust product" in the article they talk about how Symantec's bottom of the line products may be crippled. Be really careful buying this product they may claim it does one thing but in actuality it does another, so if it doesn't specifically say it can do what you want, I would stay away from Symantec. They specifically made their website both misleading and confusing to promote sales.