On 10/04/2016 01:03 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On 10/04/2016 07:58 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Yes, I have to test it. If I recall correctly it was not proven reliable.
To be perfectly pedantic about it, you can not prove any archive method reliable. It can only be proven un-reliable, and only then if the underlying storage media is reliable. Which does not happen in this world.
But lets get real here. The topic is Backup a hard drive before clean install.
So you use tar.gz and then compare or run some tests for readability. Then you carry on with your install and restore.
Your media or your tar.gz is not likely to go bad in the 90 minutes it takes to re-install.
Entire distros use tar.gz as package managers. The whole linux industry runs away from unreliability toward safety, yet you just don't hear anyone howling about tar.zs files. Where are the articles demanding everybody avoid them? How come they aren't deprecated loudly in the press and in distributions?
Instead we run headlong into things like BTRFS (100% failure rate for me) and systemd and kde4 (years before it was useable) and other unproven crapware with glee while taunting the stragglers as if they were holocaust deniers.
Then you turn around and suggest tar.gz will bit-rot inside of 90 minutes?
Come on Carlos.
Very! Well! Said!, John, although as you say, you're being pedantic, which is usually something people expect of me :-) But let me say it more briefly 1 Its about risk management. That is the most important thing and should be of overarching concern. It should be the driver that led you to consider the upgrade in the first place. 2 Backups are different from archives. if you don't understand that then you will get yourself mightily confused. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org