Re: Does Carbonite Work with Linux?
Tom Shelton
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:34:16 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>>> Explain to me how Windows BITs is going to be so magically effective
>>> that this can compete with simply buying a 1-2TB external drive,
>>> transferring the data at USB/eSata speeds and not paying the $1200
>>> transfer charges.
>>
>> Sorry you have limits. I don't.
>
> Most of the world does, and they're getting _lower_ and _more expensive_
> as a rule. And you still haven't quite explained how to get USB or eSATA
> speeds out of the thing.
I don't - and I don't care. It's a automatic background process.
--
Tom Shelton
Snit
AM:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:11:50 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> RonB used his keyboard to write :
>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 16:51:14 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> After serious thinking RonB wrote :
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:44:57 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> See, this is exactly WHY the cloud will NEVER prevail. When it
>>>>>> comes down to it, people want to control their data.
>>>>>
>>>>> I pretty much agree with this, but it has absolutely nothing to do
>>>>> with the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can, however, see the "cloud" used as adjunct to a personal
>>>>> computer. The convenience of having certain items in the cloud,
>>>>> available anywhere from any machine, can be attractive.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like a fully encrypted backup...
>>>
>>> No, I mean a lot of the stuff I'm writing, or pictures I'm storing and
>>> editing. Stuff that doesn't mean anything -- really -- except to me.
>>> This is not the kind of stuff that's not going to be targeted by
>>> hackers -- unless they really, really don't have a life. It has no
>>> monetary value.
>>
>> Which is exactly what carbonite backs up... Pictures, documents, etc.
>
> The stuff I put on Picasa and Google Docs doesn't need something like
> Carbonite -- and there's not a whole lot of it.
Of course you do not use Carbonite or something like it... you use Linux.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:17:00 -0500, flatfish+++ chinwagged:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:09:06 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 08:54:17 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Juan expressed precisely :
>>>>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:56:20 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Juan submitted this idea :
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2eclswz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.carbonite.com/lp/PPC/goog-mini-tm.aspx?
>>>>>>> gclid=CL6NtcXLpKYCFQJN4Aod7Qming&ppc_campaign=CB%20-%20TM%
>>> 20Handhold&s_kwcid=TC|6568|carbonite||S|e|
> 7157889901&ppc_group=carbonite%
>>> 20-%20Exact&ppc_kwd=carbonite&Sourcetag=google&cmpid=PPC_TM_Product
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of studios I know are using it for off site storage of client's
>>>>> projects.
>>>>
>>>> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
>>>> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
>>>> friendly.
>>>
>>> Really? Cool. I have about 600GB of video - mostly mpeg-4 - which I'd
>>> love to be able to access remotely. Once I consume my ISP-supplied
>>> 60GB, though, I'm paying by the gig past that, at something ridiculous
>>> like $2/ GB.
>>>
>>> So, let's work that out. Assuming I dedicate half my monthly allotment
>>> to this, that's 30GB. Meaning I have 570GB to go, at $2/GB, or $1140
>>> total. Plus the $54 or whatever for the service. Call it $1200 after
>>> taxes.
>>>
>>> Explain to me how Windows BITs is going to be so magically effective
>>> that this can compete with simply buying a 1-2TB external drive,
>>> transferring the data at USB/eSata speeds and not paying the $1200
>>> transfer charges.
>>
>> ...yea....
>> And when Katrina hits your house, you just lost all your porn.
>>
>> Try Iron Mountain BTW.....
>
> One of the music publishers I worked for used a grandparent-parent-child
> system of backup, and the grandparent backup (the monthly backup) was
> always duplicated and shipped to another state for off-site safekeeping.
>
> It is a very secure and efficient system. (I'm assuming they're still
> using it.)
Assuming you have the network to handle it, network backups happen more
often and are more accessible. The concept of off-site backups has grown...
which is not to say the above method is wrong.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tom Shelton
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:37:32 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> Kelsey Bjarnason brought next idea :
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:20:07 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>>> OTOH, Carbonite gives you a (deceptively labelled) "unlimited"
>>>>> backup, at just broadband speeds, sent to some mysterious datacentre
>>>>> in Boston, which the NSA can raid at any time without warrant (using
>>>>> a NSL), and which is also vulnerable to hackers, or downtime at the
>>>>> least convenient moment. And for the privilege of using this slow and
>>>>> insecure backup system, one is expected to pay $54.95 per year.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's to "love" about that?
>>>>
>>>> Simple - it's off site.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is why God created removable drives. Without bothering to
>>> comparison shop, a 500GB external (USB/eSata) is available locally for
>>> $123 - call it three month's usage of the off-site service. With it,
>>> backups proceed _much_ faster, don't rack up bandwidth costs, can be
>>> unplugged and stored offsite, can be restored vastly more efficiently
>>> than the remote backup, and the purchase cost is recovered in three
>>> months (again, not including bandwidth and other costs).
>>>
>>> So, let's see... cheaper, faster, more secure, has all the benefits of
>>> the off-site storage, none of the drawbacks. Sorry, what was to love
>>> about that ridiculous rip-off again?
>>
>> LOL... I'm sorry you have bandwidth usage charges.
>
> And once again, bonehead misses everything but the costs. Speed,
> efficiency, safety, all these go swooshing right past him.
>
> You're not the sharpest spoon in the drawer, are you?
Speed is not of the essence - this is a background process that happens
automatically. Saftey - all the data is encrypted, and it's not as if
you don't have control of what files get backed up, so you can totally
not backup any information you consider private. It also versions each
difference for a file, and will keep the older versions for like 30
days, so you can rollback to earlier versions. (yes, you can do this
with normal backups as well).
And your method does not have all the benifits of a cloud based backup:
1) you hav to own the hardware
2) run the backups
3) transport the media, if you want to store offsite.
4) limited to the size of the media you own.
The only point in your favor is speed - but considering the way that
carbonite works (or other, similar services) that is not really an
issue. The first time it can take a few days to sync your pc, but it's
not as if you notice it even running.
I'm sorry if you have bandwidth charges that would make this sort of
service expensive for you - but, I don't. So, for $55 I get unlimited
offsite backup - which happens automatically. I have full control over
what folders get backed up, what types of files get backed up, etc.
It's easy to use, as it integrates into the shell, and shows up as a
device in windows explorer, so restore is simple...
All in all, $55 a year seems to be a bargin so far.
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>> Kelsey Bjarnason brought next idea :
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, Carbonite gives you a (deceptively labelled) "unlimited"
>>>>> backup, at just broadband speeds, sent to some mysterious
>>>>> datacentre in Boston, which the NSA can raid at any time without
>>>>> warrant (using a NSL), and which is also vulnerable to hackers, or
>>>>> downtime at the least convenient moment. And for the privilege of
>>>>> using this slow and insecure backup system, one is expected to pay
>>>>> $54.95 per year.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's to "love" about that?
>>>>
>>>> Simple - it's off site.
>>>
>>> This is why God created removable drives. Without bothering to
>>> comparison shop, a 500GB external (USB/eSata) is available locally
>>> for $123 - call it three month's usage of the off-site service. With
>>> it, backups proceed _much_ faster, don't rack up bandwidth costs, can
>>> be unplugged and stored offsite, can be restored vastly more
>>> efficiently than the remote backup, and the purchase cost is
>>> recovered in three months (again, not including bandwidth and other
>>> costs).
>>>
>>> So, let's see... cheaper, faster, more secure, has all the benefits
>>> of the off-site storage, none of the drawbacks. Sorry, what was to
>>> love about that ridiculous rip-off again?
>>
>> LOL... I'm sorry you have bandwidth usage charges.
>
>
My service is not free (well, it is when I remember to expense it).
But, it is uncapped - at least I've never hit the capp and my first
backup was almost 200GB. Took about a week for it completely backup
the first time.
--
Tom Shelton
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Homer presented the following explanation :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>
>>> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
>>> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
>>> friendly.
>>
>> Enabling BITS is probably not a smart move, given that it's a key
>> component of what allows things like this to happen:
>>
>> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-
without-users-consent
>
> Paranoid lately.
<quote>
Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
</quote>
The user *disables* auto-update, presumably because they want to be in
control of what's installed and when. MS's response? To update things
anyways, without even alerting the user.
When someone *else* has the option to do things on your computer, without
your knowledge or consent, getting pissy about it is not paranoia. Just
how thrilled would you be if I started changing things on _your_ computer
without your knowledge or consent, setting things the way _I_ think they
should be?
Kelsey Bjarnason
So, let's see... you "love it", but when push comes to shove, the best
thing you have to say about it is that _if_ one lacks bandwidth
restrictions _and_ doesn't care about the backup/restore speed, then hey,
it sorta works, but nowhere near as effectively as an external drive,
which has all the benefits, none of the drawbacks, and ends up costing
less.
Yes, a glowing recommendation of the service. We'll all be sure to sign
right up, now that you've shown us all how amazingly good it is.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:25:01 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
> Speed is not of the essence
It damn well is when it's time to restore. Maybe _you_ can afford to
wait a week, most people can't.
> And your method does not have all the benifits of a cloud based backup:
>
> 1) you hav to own the hardware
Which they don't have access to.
> 2) run the backups
Which can be automated, whenever the device is connected.
> 3) transport the media, if you want to store offsite.
Which gets you your data, where you need it, at hard drive speeds.
> 4) limited to the size of the media you own.
2TB drives are fairly cheap.
> The only point in your favor is speed
Wrong again. Speed is simply a big part of the win over that ridiculous
service. Security is another big win. I note it uses 128-bit blowfish,
which even its designer recommends scrapping for better alternatives.
> - but considering the way that
> carbonite works (or other, similar services) that is not really an
> issue. The first time it can take a few days to sync your pc, but it's
> not as if you notice it even running.
A few *days*? To do a freaking *backup*? Oh, and presumably the
restore, should you ever need it, is magically done in reasonable
timeframes, right? Oh, whoops, nope. Not unless your provider supplies
bandwidth which can compete with a hard drive.
> I'm sorry if you have bandwidth charges that would make this sort of
> service expensive for you - but, I don't.
That assumes several things, including, but not limited to:
1) Your ISP doesn't change that.
2) You're actually using _your_ ISP.
One of the supposed benefits of such a service is the ability to get to
the data even when you're not home - which would mean using someone
else's ISP, quite possibly with bandwidth charges. But, hey, you won't
mind paying them $1200 to get your data back, right? After all, much
cheaper, easier, faster, safer and more reliable than using a removable
drive.
JEDIDIAH
You still have to be able to finish the backup.
You also need to be able to recover in a timely fashion or it's worse
than worthless.
--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
simple date manipulations in postgres.
JEDIDIAH
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:37:32 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> Kelsey Bjarnason brought next idea :
>>>> [snips]
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:20:07 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH, Carbonite gives you a (deceptively labelled) "unlimited"
>>>>>> backup, at just broadband speeds, sent to some mysterious datacentre
>>>>>> in Boston, which the NSA can raid at any time without warrant (using
>>>>>> a NSL), and which is also vulnerable to hackers, or downtime at the
>>>>>> least convenient moment. And for the privilege of using this slow and
>>>>>> insecure backup system, one is expected to pay $54.95 per year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's to "love" about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple - it's off site.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is why God created removable drives. Without bothering to
>>>> comparison shop, a 500GB external (USB/eSata) is available locally for
>>>> $123 - call it three month's usage of the off-site service. With it,
It's more like 750G for $100 and dropping.
You can probably get 250G or more for $55.
>>>> backups proceed _much_ faster, don't rack up bandwidth costs, can be
>>>> unplugged and stored offsite, can be restored vastly more efficiently
>>>> than the remote backup, and the purchase cost is recovered in three
>>>> months (again, not including bandwidth and other costs).
>>>>
>>>> So, let's see... cheaper, faster, more secure, has all the benefits of
>>>> the off-site storage, none of the drawbacks. Sorry, what was to love
>>>> about that ridiculous rip-off again?
>>>
>>> LOL... I'm sorry you have bandwidth usage charges.
>>
>> And once again, bonehead misses everything but the costs. Speed,
>> efficiency, safety, all these go swooshing right past him.
>>
>> You're not the sharpest spoon in the drawer, are you?
>
> Speed is not of the essence - this is a background process that happens
...spoken like someone that has never done an actually recovery in his
entire miserable clueless existence.
> automatically. Saftey - all the data is encrypted, and it's not as if
> you don't have control of what files get backed up, so you can totally
> not backup any information you consider private. It also versions each
> difference for a file, and will keep the older versions for like 30
> days, so you can rollback to earlier versions. (yes, you can do this
> with normal backups as well).
>
> And your method does not have all the benifits of a cloud based backup:
>
> 1) you hav to own the hardware
So? It's cheaper than the service.
> 2) run the backups
Any number of applications will automate this. Buy one from the same
sort of people you would buy a "service" from.
> 3) transport the media, if you want to store offsite.
Not terribly difficult. Take it to work with you one day.
> 4) limited to the size of the media you own.
Which compared to what a "service" will cost you is f*cking huge.
[deletia]
The problem with cloud storage is that it typically costs more per
annum than just buying some form of local storage.
--
It's not the size of the CPU, it's how you use it. |||
/ | \
Tom Shelton
That's not what I said, but if that's what you want to hear have at it.
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
> On 2011-01-10, Tom Shelton <tom_s...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>> Kelsey Bjarnason explained :
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:34:16 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Explain to me how Windows BITs is going to be so magically effective
>>>>> that this can compete with simply buying a 1-2TB external drive,
>>>>> transferring the data at USB/eSata speeds and not paying the $1200
>>>>> transfer charges.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry you have limits. I don't.
>>>
>>> Most of the world does, and they're getting _lower_ and _more expensive_
>>> as a rule. And you still haven't quite explained how to get USB or eSATA
>>> speeds out of the thing.
>>
>> I don't - and I don't care. It's a automatic background process.
>
> You still have to be able to finish the backup.
>
> You also need to be able to recover in a timely fashion or it's worse
> than worthless.
LOL... getting my pictures back needs to be a timely process? Please.
You people are the funniest group of sour grapers I've ever seen.
All of my stuff that I would want back instantly are on my gentoo
server, most of it under svn. As well as on carbonite :)
--
Tom Shelton
Kelsey Bjarnason
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:50:50 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> Homer presented the following explanation :
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
>>>>> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
>>>>> friendly.
>>>>
>>>> Enabling BITS is probably not a smart move, given that it's a key
>>>> component of what allows things like this to happen:
>>>>
>>>> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-
>> without-users-consent
>>>
>>> Paranoid lately.
>>
>> <quote>
>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without
>> users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>> </quote>
>>
>> The user *disables* auto-update, presumably because they want to be in
>> control of what's installed and when. MS's response? To update things
>> anyways, without even alerting the user.
>>
>>
>
> Debunked.
> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/blogs/mowgreen/index.php?showentry=1166
What, you mean the part where it says:
<quote>
Then I set the Automatic Updates option to " Notify me but don't
automatically download or install them "
Right after closing the AU options, the system files were downloaded and
installed without any interaction on my part.
</quote>
Okay, fine; apparently if the option is disabled, it will in fact
disable, but if it's not - if it's told to be enabled, but NOT TO DO
ANYTHING WITHOUT CONFIRMATION, it goes right ahead and does it anyways,
fuck you, fuck your computer, fuck your choices, fuck your settings, fuck
the idea that you are in control.
Sorry, were you actually whining about a trivial technicality in the face
of the absurd reality? No, tell me you weren't being that much of a
ninny.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> http://tinyurl.com/2eclswz
>
>
> http://www.carbonite.com/lp/PPC/goog-mini-tm.aspx?
> gclid=CL6NtcXLpKYCFQJN4Aod7Qming&ppc_campaign=CB%20-%20TM%
20Handhold&s_kwcid=TC|6568|carbonite||S|e|7157889901&ppc_group=carbonite%
20-%20Exact&ppc_kwd=carbonite&Sourcetag=google&cmpid=PPC_TM_Product
Oh, buggering hell. I just looked at carbonite's site. What a sad joke
of a product. Here's a quote:
"Carbonite backs up the irreplaceable files on your computer – user-
generated content such as photos, documents, music etc. We do not back up
software programs, , temporary files or system files."
A backup that *doesn't* back up programs. Or settings. Or videos. Or
files over 4GB. And if you actually have serious amounts of data - over
200GB - they'll let you back it up, but it'll become significantly slower.
Meanwhile, I've got a 500GB external, doesn't care what I put on it, how
big the files are, doesn't slow down, doesn't suck my bandwidth, is
vastly more efficient to restore from and if I'm using someone else's
'net connection, doesn't screw them on the bandwidth costs. Oh, and I
get to define both what gets backed up, when it gets backed up, what
encryption to use and so forth.
Yeah, a real winner, this service.
Does it work with Linux? Good grief, who *cares*? It'd be less painful
to go back to using tapes.
RonB
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:50:50 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> Homer presented the following explanation :
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
>>>>> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
>>>>> friendly.
>>>>
>>>> Enabling BITS is probably not a smart move, given that it's a key
>>>> component of what allows things like this to happen:
>>>>
>>>> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-
>> without-users-consent
>>>
>>> Paranoid lately.
>>
>> <quote>
>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without
>> users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>> </quote>
>>
>> The user *disables* auto-update, presumably because they want to be in
>> control of what's installed and when. MS's response? To update things
>> anyways, without even alerting the user.
>>
>>
>
> Debunked.
> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/blogs/mowgreen/index.php?showentry=1166
Except the "debunking" does *not* debunk.
~~
If one chooses to set AU to " Notify me ... " or " Download updates for
me, but let me choose when to install them " then any subsequent update to
the WUA will occur without any User interaction.
~~
It's ironic that this is coming from a site that's mainly concerned with
cleaning malware out of Windows -- malware that loads itself
automatically, also without "User interaction."
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
Chris Ahlstrom
> JEDIDIAH explained :
>
>> You also need to be able to recover in a timely fashion or it's worse
>> than worthless.
>
> LOL... getting my pictures back needs to be a timely process? Please.
> You people are the funniest group of sour grapers I've ever seen.
>
> All of my stuff that I would want back instantly are on my gentoo
> server, most of it under svn. As well as on carbonite :)
So you tacitly agree with the others, and admit that Carbonite is not enough.
--
algorithm, n.:
Trendy dance for hip programmers.
Chris Ahlstrom
> After serious thinking Chris Ahlstrom wrote :
> I don't agree in the slightest. This is just a bunch of word twisting
> bullshit because someone pointed out that it doesn't run on linux.
> Personally, that doesn't bother me one way or the other... The
> availability of carbonite on linux is not a deciding factor as to it's
> fitness of purpous.
>
> Carbonite provides a commercial service - I happen to like the service
> they provide, otherwise I wouldn't pay for it. I think it is up to the
> individual if the service is worth it or not.
>
> For me, it is convenient offsite backup of data. As for it being
> "enough" - it's not a matter of it being enough - it's a matter of good
> practice. For my most criticle data, I do keep local backups as well.
So you do admit that Carbonite is not enough, then.
--
Many changes of mind and mood; do not hesitate too long.
Uuh
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:58:06 +0000, Uuh wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:50:50 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Homer presented the following explanation :
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
>>>>>> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
>>>>>> friendly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enabling BITS is probably not a smart move, given that it's a key
>>>>> component of what allows things like this to happen:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-
>>> without-users-consent
>>>>
>>>> Paranoid lately.
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without
>>> users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> The user *disables* auto-update, presumably because they want to be in
>>> control of what's installed and when. MS's response? To update
>>> things anyways, without even alerting the user.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Debunked.
>> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/blogs/mowgreen/index.php?showentry=1166
>
> E
http://blogs.technet.com/b/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-
itself-up-to-date.aspx
"Before closing, I would like to address another misconception that I
have seen publically reported. WU does not automatically update itself
when Automatic Updates is turned off, this only happens when the customer
is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of
updates."
RonB
Restoring the following quote from the website that supposedly "debunked"
the fact that Windows updates files without User interaction...
"If one chooses to set AU to " Notify me ... " or " Download updates for
me, but let me choose when to install them " then any subsequent update to
the WUA will occur without any User interaction."
Note that phrase "without any User interaction." Kind of like malware
installs itself "without any User Interaction." And, again, it's ironic
that this appears on website dedicated to trying to repair windows when it
has been attacked by malware that installs itself "without any User
Kelsey Bjarnason
No,you've carefully avoided saying anything about the supposed actual
benefits of the service; I just summarized your lack of evidenced
benefits in a nice, neat package.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:13:34 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>> You also need to be able to recover in a timely fashion or it's
>> worse
>> than worthless.
>
> LOL... getting my pictures back needs to be a timely process?
If I'm handling media for a client, then yes, having rapid access to the
media is absolutely critical.
But there you go, just another case where the service being discussed
just sucks dead donkey balls compared to something like an external HD.
'Course, for about $40 or less, you can get a USB key which will let you
take 16GB of that data with you, on a keychain, and not have to dick
around with stupid, slow online backups, and not have the mass of an
external drive.
Sorry, did this service you're on about have *any* actual benefits?
Other than giving us something to laugh at you about?
JEDIDIAH
I think the only benefit this "service" has is being fodder for trolls.
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
Juan
http://www.carbonite.com/lp/PPC/goog-mini-tm.aspx?
gclid=CL6NtcXLpKYCFQJN4Aod7Qming&ppc_campaign=CB%20-%20TM%20Handhold&s_kwcid=TC|6568|carbonite||S|e|7157889901&ppc_group=carbonite%20-%20Exact&ppc_kwd=carbonite&Sourcetag=google&cmpid=PPC_TM_Product
Tom Shelton
> http://tinyurl.com/2eclswz
>
>
> http://www.carbonite.com/lp/PPC/goog-mini-tm.aspx?
> gclid=CL6NtcXLpKYCFQJN4Aod7Qming&ppc_campaign=CB%20-%20TM%20Handhold&s_kwcid=TC|6568|carbonite||S|e|7157889901&ppc_group=carbonite%20-%20Exact&ppc_kwd=carbonite&Sourcetag=google&cmpid=PPC_TM_Product
I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
--
Tom Shelton
Homer
>
Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
OTOH, Carbonite gives you a (deceptively labelled) "unlimited" backup,
at just broadband speeds, sent to some mysterious datacentre in Boston,
which the NSA can raid at any time without warrant (using a NSL), and
which is also vulnerable to hackers, or downtime at the least convenient
moment. And for the privilege of using this slow and insecure backup
system, one is expected to pay $54.95 per year.
What's to "love" about that?
--
K. | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ignorant twits who know nothing
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 12 days | about GNU/Linux."
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>
>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>
> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
> local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
> measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
> Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
> particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
> supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
Something you can do on other OSs... but on other OSs you have... wait for
it... wait for it... "advocates" start to quake in their boots... that's
right, you have more *choice*.
Choice is good.
Right?
> OTOH, Carbonite gives you a (deceptively labelled) "unlimited" backup,
> at just broadband speeds, sent to some mysterious datacentre in Boston,
> which the NSA can raid at any time without warrant (using a NSL), and
> which is also vulnerable to hackers, or downtime at the least convenient
> moment. And for the privilege of using this slow and insecure backup
> system, one is expected to pay $54.95 per year.
>
> What's to "love" about that?
Those grapes in your world are horribly sour.
Oh, and do you have any idea of what type encryption Carbonite offers? I
doubt it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
> Homer stated in post ag6gv7-...@sky.matrix on 1/6/11 12:10 AM:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>
>>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>>
>> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
>> local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
>> measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
>> Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
>> particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
>> supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
>
> Something you can do on other OSs... but on other OSs you have... wait for
> it... wait for it... "advocates" start to quake in their boots... that's
> right, you have more *choice*.
>
> Choice is good.
>
> Right?
Not quite.
First of all rsync and rsnapshot do not run on Windows (at least not
natively), so that's already one choice I don't have.
Other choices it lacks:
* not possible to dump the default window manager and switch to
something completly different
* not possible to take the installation media and install on any
system I like, legally
* not possible to run postfix, my favorite MTA
* not possible to run mutt, my favorite MUA
* not possible to run on eg. PPC and Sparc
And so on. You could've been more correct if you said 'you have other
choices' instead of 'more choice'. But you didn't.
--
If Butch goes to Indochina, I want a nigger waiting in a bowl
of rice ready to bust out and pop a cap in his ass.
~ Mr. Wallace
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>
>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>
> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
> local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
> measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
> Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
> particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
> supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
>
> OTOH, Carbonite gives you a (deceptively labelled) "unlimited" backup,
> at just broadband speeds, sent to some mysterious datacentre in Boston,
> which the NSA can raid at any time without warrant (using a NSL), and
> which is also vulnerable to hackers, or downtime at the least convenient
> moment. And for the privilege of using this slow and insecure backup
> system, one is expected to pay $54.95 per year.
>
> What's to "love" about that?
Simple - it's off site. If my house burns down, I get a new computer
plug it in, and download my data. It's automatic. It's easy to
maintain.
As far as data security, everything is encrypted. And, to be honest,
I'm not at all scared about the NSA looking at my data.
No one is forcing you to use it (oh, wait you can't!) - but, I like the
service, and it's saved my butt a couple of times.
--
Tom Shelton
Snit
> On 2011-01-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Homer stated in post ag6gv7-...@sky.matrix on 1/6/11 12:10 AM:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
>>> local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
>>> measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
>>> Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
>>> particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
>>> supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
>>
>> Something you can do on other OSs... but on other OSs you have... wait for
>> it... wait for it... "advocates" start to quake in their boots... that's
>> right, you have more *choice*.
>>
>> Choice is good.
>>
>> Right?
>
> Not quite.
>
> First of all rsync and rsnapshot do not run on Windows (at least not
> natively), so that's already one choice I don't have.
There are alternatives that do the same thing... including DeltaCopy which
is a wrapper around rsync, cwRsync, Windows Backup Agent, etc.
Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux? Any service which is
substantially the same and is backed by as large of a company (so that the
chances of it folding are slim)?
If not, and I suspect not, then Linux simply offers less choice. In this
area... a distinction which is obvious but you, below, pretend not.
> Other choices it lacks:
> * not possible to dump the default window manager and switch to
> something completly different
> * not possible to take the installation media and install on any
> system I like, legally
> * not possible to run postfix, my favorite MTA
> * not possible to run mutt, my favorite MUA
> * not possible to run on eg. PPC and Sparc
>
> And so on. You could've been more correct if you said 'you have other
> choices' instead of 'more choice'. But you didn't.
Clearly I was talking about the topic. If you decide to include *all*
choices things get silly really fast. Let's not expand this topic to
include MS Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver and all the other Windows-only
software that simply have no equals on Linux.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lusotec
> Tom Shelton wrote:
>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>
> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN,
That is the main reason I currently don't make backups to off-site machines.
At home, my Internet upload bandwidth is 2 Mbps. Backups at that speed would
take too long and hog the Internet connection.
To make off-site backups I carry disks back and forward between my house and
office.
> sent to a secure local server that only I have access to,
If I ever do remote backups it will be to servers I control, and using
software I can review.
> with an expandable capacity measured in terabytes.
Storage is dirt cheap these days (e.g. 2 TB external drives for 110 €).
Regards.
Snit
7:20 AM:
When there is a choice in Linux, even lacking any reasonable use case,
"advocates" tout is as an advantage. When there is a choice for Windows and
Linux, even if it is a fairly common choice and one people use, you get to
see how choice is no longer important and out come the sour grapes.
For what it is worth, I prefer Mozy over Carbonite (though it has been a
while since I compared - things might have changed)... and there are other
*choices* out there for OS X and Windows users.
Oh, and as far as the NSA having ways to break 448 bit Blowfish (what both
Carbonite and Mozy use) is pretty slim unless they have mathematical models
unknown to the rest of the academic community. And if they can do this then
any data you encrypt on any system is going to be vulnerable. That was just
a silly and paranoid thing for Homer to complain about.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
> Shit wrote:
>> Homer stated:
>> Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
>>> local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
>>> measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
>>> Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
>>> particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
>>> supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
>>
>> Something you can do on other OSs... but on other OSs you have... wait for
>> it... wait for it... "advocates" start to quake in their boots... that's
>> right, you have more *choice*.
Stupid, lying, piece of snit. Advocating Linux, claiming the Linux
way is superior, is not anti-choice.
We defend freedom and choice, while reserving the right to call you an
idiot for the choices you have made.
Go to a casino and gamble-away your life savings, if you want.
>> Choice is good.
>>
>> Right?
Right.
>Not quite.
>
>You could've been more correct if you said 'you have other
>choices' instead of 'more choice'. But you didn't.
His main point was to be a shitty "advocates are hypocrites" troll, of
course.
Juan
A lot of studios I know are using it for off site storage of
client's projects.
Tom Shelton
The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
friendly.
--
Tom Shelton
Lusotec
> Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux?
Never tried it or had a need to.
> Any service which is substantially the same and is backed by as large of a
> company (so that the chances of it folding are slim)?
There is no shortage of backup services that support GNU/Linux. I don't know
if any is "substantially the same". Search for "rsync backup".
> If not, and I suspect not, then Linux simply offers less choice.
Not offering one particular choice, is not the same as not offering less
choice.
There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services for
GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise grade
solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet that GNU/Linux
offer more choice in this particular case than any other OS.
Regards.
Snit
8:37 AM:
> TomB wrote:
>
>> Shit wrote:
>>> Homer stated:
>>> Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
>>>> local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
>>>> measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
>>>> Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
>>>> particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
>>>> supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
>>>
>>> Something you can do on other OSs... but on other OSs you have... wait for
>>> it... wait for it... "advocates" start to quake in their boots... that's
>>> right, you have more *choice*.
>
> Stupid, lying, piece of snit. Advocating Linux, claiming the Linux
> way is superior, is not anti-choice.
Nobody said it was.
> We defend freedom and choice, while reserving the right to call you an
> idiot for the choices you have made.
It comes down to you tout the choices you have and denounce the choices you
do not have. This is a double standard - and your fellow "advocate" was
called on it so you are lashing out.
> Go to a casino and gamble-away your life savings, if you want.
See: you are not even trying to be on topic.
>>> Choice is good.
>>>
>>> Right?
>
> Right.
>
>> Not quite.
>>
>> You could've been more correct if you said 'you have other
>> choices' instead of 'more choice'. But you didn't.
>
> His main point was to be a shitty "advocates are hypocrites" troll, of
> course.
The point is Homer *is* being hypocritical here. And you are defending
that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:57 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux?
>
> Never tried it or had a need to.
So you do not know. Ok. Not a big deal.
>> Any service which is substantially the same and is backed by as large of a
>> company (so that the chances of it folding are slim)?
>
> There is no shortage of backup services that support GNU/Linux. I don't know
> if any is "substantially the same". Search for "rsync backup".
>
>> If not, and I suspect not, then Linux simply offers less choice.
>
> Not offering one particular choice, is not the same as not offering less
> choice.
So what is the choice which is substantially the same?
> There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services for
> GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise grade
> solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet that GNU/Linux
> offer more choice in this particular case than any other OS.
I think most OSs offer decent choice here... but I know of nothing for Linux
that is as easy to use, well known and has the level of support as does
Carbonite. I could be wrong... but so far nobody seems to know of any such
service.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:44 AM:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:56:20 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> Juan submitted this idea :
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2eclswz
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.carbonite.com/lp/PPC/goog-mini-tm.aspx?
>>> gclid=CL6NtcXLpKYCFQJN4Aod7Qming&ppc_campaign=CB%20-%20TM%20Handhold&s_kwcid
>>> =TC|6568|carbonite||S|e|7157889901&ppc_group=carbonite%20-%20Exact&ppc_kwd=c
>>> arbonite&Sourcetag=google&cmpid=PPC_TM_Product
>>
>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>
> A lot of studios I know are using it for off site storage of
> client's projects.
I know many people / companies using Carbonite or Mozy. Both are easy to
use, secure and well respected. I do not know of a similar service or
Juan
Yet these same freetards are gloating over the cloud and Google's
plans.
Hypocrites.
Not to forget not having to purchase additional hardware.
The Linux loons love to play the sour grapes when something doesn't
work for them.
It's STOP in the freetard world.
A lot of studios are using Carbonite for the very reasons you
mention.
It's easy, works transparently and inexpensive.
I love watching freetards stomp around in their sour grapes world.
Snit
8:54 AM:
> Juan expressed precisely :
>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:56:20 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> Juan submitted this idea :
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2eclswz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.carbonite.com/lp/PPC/goog-mini-tm.aspx?
>>>> gclid=CL6NtcXLpKYCFQJN4Aod7Qming&ppc_campaign=CB%20-%20TM%20Handhold&s_kwci
>>>> d=TC|6568|carbonite||S|e|7157889901&ppc_group=carbonite%20-%20Exact&ppc_kwd
>>>> =carbonite&Sourcetag=google&cmpid=PPC_TM_Product
>>>
>>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>>
>> A lot of studios I know are using it for off site storage of
>> client's projects.
>
> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
> friendly.
Mozy is (or at least was) considerably cheaper for businesses.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
> troll:
>>
>> If not, and I suspect not, then Linux simply offers less choice.
>
>Not offering one particular choice, is not the same as not offering less
>choice.
Stupid trolling assholes have difficulty with such elementary logic,
of course.
Juan
A very good primer in "Freetardology" Snit!
It's entertaining watching the paranoid toner monkeys come crawling
out of the rafters.
Juan
Mozy is another one I hear mentioned by studios.
I don't know of that kind of service for Linux.
I'm sure some kid in his basement is probably running what he calls
the free version of Carbonite.
It's probably named after some Star Wars character or something.
One-Shot, One-Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5bqbi6l7v63hhht1d...@4ax.com...
more lies from the stupid fscking asshole that calls itself chrisv.
stupid fscking loser.
chrisv
>There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services for
>GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise grade
>solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet that GNU/Linux
>offer more choice in this particular case than any other OS.
And even if it has "less choice", it wouldn't make magically
"unsuitable" or "inferior" for huge swarths of the market. Some
choices simply are not needed.
I can't get a V12 engine in the car I like, and I can live with that
just fine. For those who really must have a V12, fine, they can
cough-up the money for a car that gives them that choice.
One-Shot, One-Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Stupid trolling assholes
there is nobody in the world that is more stupid or a bigger asshole than a
fscking useless turd like you "chrisv"
Snit
9:11 AM:
> Lusotec wrote:
>
>> troll:
>>>
>>> If not, and I suspect not, then Linux simply offers less choice.
>>
>> Not offering one particular choice, is not the same as not offering less
>> choice.
>
> Stupid trolling assholes have difficulty with such elementary logic,
> of course.
Keep in mind, nobody had suggested they believed the above straw man you
claim people are having difficulty understanding.
Nobody. All you are doing is stampeding.
>> There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services for
>> GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise grade
>> solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet that GNU/Linux
>> offer more choice in this particular case than any other OS.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:46 AM:
> Lusotec wrote:
>
>> There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services for
>> GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise grade
>> solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet that GNU/Linux
>> offer more choice in this particular case than any other OS.
>
> And even if it has "less choice", it wouldn't make magically
> "unsuitable" or "inferior" for huge swarths of the market. Some
> choices simply are not needed.
But when it is noted that Linux offers a choice Windows or OS X does not,
then *that* choice is of utmost importance. The hypocracy here is absurd.
> I can't get a V12 engine in the car I like, and I can live with that
> just fine. For those who really must have a V12, fine, they can
> cough-up the money for a car that gives them that choice.
>
> Stupid trolling assholes have difficulty with such elementary logic,
> of course.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:46 AM:
> Lusotec wrote:
You made that up. In other words: you lied.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lusotec
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux?
>>
>> Never tried it or had a need to.
>
> So you do not know. Ok. Not a big deal.
Slow, out of my control, and no explicit support for the OS I use. For these
reasons I have no interest in it.
>>> Any service which is substantially the same and is backed by as large of
>>> a company (so that the chances of it folding are slim)?
>>
>> There is no shortage of backup services that support GNU/Linux. I don't
>> know if any is "substantially the same". Search for "rsync backup".
>>
>>> If not, and I suspect not, then Linux simply offers less choice.
>>
>> Not offering one particular choice, is not the same as not offering less
>> choice.
>
> So what is the choice which is substantially the same?
Never tried Carbonite so I can't make a informed comparison with other
options, *obviously*.
>> There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services for
>> GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise grade
>> solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet that
>> GNU/Linux offer more choice in this particular case than any other OS.
>
> I think most OSs offer decent choice here... but I know of nothing for
> Linux that is as easy to use, well known and has the level of support as
> does Carbonite. I could be wrong... but so far nobody seems to know of
> any such service.
There is no shortage of online storage services that provide rsync support,
and there are easy to use rsync GUIs.
But if you want an example that supports GNU/Linux, and is easy to use:
https://www.jungledisk.com/
A search will show varied other options.
Regards.
Snit
10:09 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux?
>>>
>>> Never tried it or had a need to.
>>
>> So you do not know. Ok. Not a big deal.
>
> Slow, out of my control, and no explicit support for the OS I use. For these
> reasons I have no interest in it.
You do not have any interest in the service. That is fine. I wonder if
anyone else has any knowledge?
...
>>> There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services for
>>> GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise grade
>>> solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet that
>>> GNU/Linux offer more choice in this particular case than any other OS.
>>
>> I think most OSs offer decent choice here... but I know of nothing for
>> Linux that is as easy to use, well known and has the level of support as
>> does Carbonite. I could be wrong... but so far nobody seems to know of
>> any such service.
>
> There is no shortage of online storage services that provide rsync support,
> and there are easy to use rsync GUIs.
>
> But if you want an example that supports GNU/Linux, and is easy to use:
> https://www.jungledisk.com/
>
> A search will show varied other options.
>
> Regards.
>
For any non-trivial amounts of data, jungledisk is a lot more expensive, at
least based on reviews.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lusotec
> Mozy is (or at least was) considerably cheaper for businesses.
<quote>
* Desktop Licenses: €3.99 per month + €0.50 /GB per month
* Server Licenses:€6.99 per month + €0.50 /GB per month
</quote>
http://mozy.ie/pro/pricing/
Seems more expensive than Amazon S3 storage.
http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing
Regards.
Peter Köhlmann
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux?
>>>
>>> Never tried it or had a need to.
>>
>> So you do not know. Ok. Not a big deal.
>
> Slow, out of my control, and no explicit support for the OS I use. For these
> reasons I have no interest in it.
There are dozens of backup solutions for linux, which are at the same or
better level.
Good is for example Clonezilla, which has lots of options (much more than that
"Carbonite" thingy).
Good is also "Bacula" or "Areca" or "WebAttachedBackup"
*Lots* more, there are at least around 50 Backup solutions for linux.
If you don't like the best of them, rsync (or duplicity, or ftplicity. which
are build around rsync)
And then this idiotic cretinous clown Snot/Snit Michael Glasser comes along
and tells us that his stupid backup tool is the be all of them.
--
Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
dumb to handle the real thing
Lusotec
> Oh, and as far as the NSA having ways to break 448 bit Blowfish (what both
> Carbonite and Mozy use) is pretty slim unless they have mathematical
> models unknown to the rest of the academic community.
"To prevent unauthorized access to your files, we encrypt them with 128-bit
Blowfish encryption before they even leave your computer."
http://www.carbonite.com/en/online-backup-software/secure-data-backup
"Can other people or Carbonite employees see my data?
No. Your files are encrypted before they leave your computer and they remain
encrypted on our secure servers. No one can access your backed up files
without your Carbonite username and password."
How the encryption key is generated is the issue. From the very quick read I
did, the encryption key seems to be generated from the username/password. If
that is true then the key is not really 128-bits (not 448-bit) but
significantly less.
> And if they can do
> this then any data you encrypt on any system is going to be vulnerable.
Not a valid deduction.
> That was just a silly and paranoid thing for Homer to complain about.
If one reads NSA as a euphemism (for unauthorized access), then Homer's
worry is valid.
Regards.
Snit
10:26 AM:
> Lusotec wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Never tried it or had a need to.
>>>
>>> So you do not know. Ok. Not a big deal.
>>
>> Slow, out of my control, and no explicit support for the OS I use. For these
>> reasons I have no interest in it.
>
> There are dozens of backup solutions for linux, which are at the same or
> better level.
>
> Good is for example Clonezilla, which has lots of options (much more than that
> "Carbonite" thingy).
Do they even have a backup area for users? If not it is not a complete
solution!
> Good is also "Bacula" or "Areca" or "WebAttachedBackup"
>
> *Lots* more, there are at least around 50 Backup solutions for linux.
But which are similar to Carbonite or Mozy? Are there any?
> If you don't like the best of them, rsync (or duplicity, or ftplicity. which
> are build around rsync)
>
> And then this idiotic cretinous clown Snot/Snit Michael Glasser comes along
> and tells us that his stupid backup tool is the be all of them.
Never said that. You made it up. In other words: you lied.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:23 AM:
I would have to recheck yearly fees and the like... but been a while since I
looked into them and their prices might have changed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:33 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> Oh, and as far as the NSA having ways to break 448 bit Blowfish (what both
>> Carbonite and Mozy use) is pretty slim unless they have mathematical
>> models unknown to the rest of the academic community.
>
> "To prevent unauthorized access to your files, we encrypt them with 128-bit
> Blowfish encryption before they even leave your computer."
> http://www.carbonite.com/en/online-backup-software/secure-data-backup
>
> "Can other people or Carbonite employees see my data?
> No. Your files are encrypted before they leave your computer and they remain
> encrypted on our secure servers. No one can access your backed up files
> without your Carbonite username and password."
>
> How the encryption key is generated is the issue. From the very quick read I
> did, the encryption key seems to be generated from the username/password. If
> that is true then the key is not really 128-bits (not 448-bit) but
> significantly less.
>
>> And if they can do
>> this then any data you encrypt on any system is going to be vulnerable.
>
> Not a valid deduction.
Why not?
>> That was just a silly and paranoid thing for Homer to complain about.
>
> If one reads NSA as a euphemism (for unauthorized access), then Homer's
> worry is valid.
How so? How so you think someone would break the encryption?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
> Shit wrote:
>>
>> And if they can do
>> this then any data you encrypt on any system is going to be vulnerable.
>
>Not a valid deduction.
The next thing you know, that fscktarded trolling shit will deduce
"simply offers less choice" from "this specific choice not available".
Oh wait, he already has.
Lusotec
> Lusotec wrote:
>> There is no shortage of online storage services that provide rsync
>> support, and there are easy to use rsync GUIs.
>>
>> But if you want an example that supports GNU/Linux, and is easy to use:
>> https://www.jungledisk.com/
>>
>> A search will show varied other options.
>
> at least based on reviews.
From the prices displayed on the sites, the cheapest service will depend on
the number of system to backup and the backup size.
Regards.
Ezekiel
"Lusotec" <nom...@nomail.not> wrote in message
news:ig4udg$4e4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Snit wrote:
>> Oh, and as far as the NSA having ways to break 448 bit Blowfish (what
>> both
>> Carbonite and Mozy use) is pretty slim unless they have mathematical
>> models unknown to the rest of the academic community.
>
> "To prevent unauthorized access to your files, we encrypt them with
> 128-bit
> Blowfish encryption before they even leave your computer."
> http://www.carbonite.com/en/online-backup-software/secure-data-backup
>
> "Can other people or Carbonite employees see my data?
> No. Your files are encrypted before they leave your computer and they
> remain
> encrypted on our secure servers. No one can access your backed up files
> without your Carbonite username and password."
>
> How the encryption key is generated is the issue. From the very quick read
> I
> did, the encryption key seems to be generated from the username/password.
> If
> that is true then the key is not really 128-bits (not 448-bit) but
> significantly less.
Then generate your own encryption key if this concerns you.
> If one reads NSA as a euphemism (for unauthorized access), then Homer's
> worry is valid.
Anyone who is worried about the NSA cracking blowfish encryption on your
account to access your backups has no business using online backups to begin
with. The NSA has much bigger things to worry about than Homer's backups.
People who worry about this sort of thing have their tin-foil helmet on way
too tight.
It's ironic that people who worry about the NSA decrypting backups are often
the same people who have no problems at all giving all of their information
to Google in plain text via "cloud computing."
Snit
10:49 AM:
Nope. You made that up. In other words: you lied.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
*kathunk*
<sound of Homer's fat head hitting the door frame on the way out>
Lusotec
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Oh, and as far as the NSA having ways to break 448 bit Blowfish (what
>>> both Carbonite and Mozy use) is pretty slim unless they have
>>> mathematical models unknown to the rest of the academic community.
>>
>> "To prevent unauthorized access to your files, we encrypt them with
>> 128-bit Blowfish encryption before they even leave your computer."
>> http://www.carbonite.com/en/online-backup-software/secure-data-backup
>>
>> "Can other people or Carbonite employees see my data?
>> No. Your files are encrypted before they leave your computer and they
>> remain encrypted on our secure servers. No one can access your backed up
>> files without your Carbonite username and password."
>>
>> How the encryption key is generated is the issue. From the very quick
>> read I did, the encryption key seems to be generated from the
>> username/password. If that is true then the key is not really 128-bits
>> (not 448-bit) but significantly less.
>>
>>> And if they can do
>>> this then any data you encrypt on any system is going to be vulnerable.
>>
>> Not a valid deduction.
>
> Why not?
The strength of the encryption depends on the quality of the algorithm and
the quality of key.
The algorithm used by carbonite, 128-bit blowfish, should be good enough for
most uses but if the encryption key is derived from the username/password
then there is a significant weakness in their system. Even good passwords
will have less than 64 bits, and bad passwords will have much less than
that.
>>> That was just a silly and paranoid thing for Homer to complain about.
>>
>> If one reads NSA as a euphemism (for unauthorized access), then Homer's
>> worry is valid.
>
> How so? How so you think someone would break the encryption?
It may be possible to break the encryption by exploiting the weakest aspect,
the key generation from the username/password. Passwords don't usually have
enough entropy to generate good encryption keys.
Regards.
Snit
11:26 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Oh, and as far as the NSA having ways to break 448 bit Blowfish (what
>>>> both Carbonite and Mozy use) is pretty slim unless they have
>>>> mathematical models unknown to the rest of the academic community.
>>>
>>> "To prevent unauthorized access to your files, we encrypt them with
>>> 128-bit Blowfish encryption before they even leave your computer."
>>> http://www.carbonite.com/en/online-backup-software/secure-data-backup
>>>
>>> "Can other people or Carbonite employees see my data?
>>> No. Your files are encrypted before they leave your computer and they
>>> remain encrypted on our secure servers. No one can access your backed up
>>> files without your Carbonite username and password."
>>>
>>> How the encryption key is generated is the issue. From the very quick
>>> read I did, the encryption key seems to be generated from the
>>> username/password. If that is true then the key is not really 128-bits
>>> (not 448-bit) but significantly less.
>>>
>>>> And if they can do
>>>> this then any data you encrypt on any system is going to be vulnerable.
>>>
>>> Not a valid deduction.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> The strength of the encryption depends on the quality of the algorithm and
> the quality of key.
Sure - but the user controls the key.
And, to be clear, just because an algorithm is used does not mean it is used
well - look at WEP for an example of poor implementation. So it could be
messed up, we just have no reason to think it is.
> The algorithm used by carbonite, 128-bit blowfish, should be good enough for
> most uses but if the encryption key is derived from the username/password
> then there is a significant weakness in their system. Even good passwords
> will have less than 64 bits, and bad passwords will have much less than
> that.
I believe you can set your own keys.
>>>> That was just a silly and paranoid thing for Homer to complain about.
>>>
>>> If one reads NSA as a euphemism (for unauthorized access), then Homer's
>>> worry is valid.
>>
>> How so? How so you think someone would break the encryption?
>
> It may be possible to break the encryption by exploiting the weakest aspect,
> the key generation from the username/password. Passwords don't usually have
> enough entropy to generate good encryption keys.
This is going to be true for any password system though.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/6/11 11:57 AM:
> Peter K??hlmann pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> Never tried it or had a need to.
>>>>
>>>> So you do not know. Ok. Not a big deal.
>>>
>>> Slow, out of my control, and no explicit support for the OS I use. For these
>>> reasons I have no interest in it.
>>
>> There are dozens of backup solutions for linux, which are at the same or
>> better level.
>>
>> Good is for example Clonezilla, which has lots of options (much more than
>> that
>> "Carbonite" thingy).
>> Good is also "Bacula" or "Areca" or "WebAttachedBackup"
>>
>> *Lots* more, there are at least around 50 Backup solutions for linux.
>>
>> If you don't like the best of them, rsync (or duplicity, or ftplicity. which
>> are build around rsync)
>>
>> And then this idiotic cretinous clown Snot/Snit Michael Glasser comes along
>> and tells us that his stupid backup tool is the be all of them.
>
> Well, Snit saw the ads on teevee...
Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> Lusotec wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> Do you know of any way to use Carbonite on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Never tried it or had a need to.
>>>
>>> So you do not know. Ok. Not a big deal.
>>
>> Slow, out of my control, and no explicit support for the OS I use. For these
>> reasons I have no interest in it.
>
> There are dozens of backup solutions for linux, which are at the same or
> better level.
>
> Good is for example Clonezilla, which has lots of options (much more than that
> "Carbonite" thingy).
> Good is also "Bacula" or "Areca" or "WebAttachedBackup"
>
> *Lots* more, there are at least around 50 Backup solutions for linux.
>
> If you don't like the best of them, rsync (or duplicity, or ftplicity. which
> are build around rsync)
>
> And then this idiotic cretinous clown Snot/Snit Michael Glasser comes along
> and tells us that his stupid backup tool is the be all of them.
Well, Snit saw the ads on teevee...
--
Girls really do know just what they want -- you to figure it out for yourself!
Juan
You said it.
The typical COLA gangbang....
I hear Marti begs to go last :(
Snit
12:27 PM:
...
>>>> If you don't like the best of them, rsync (or duplicity, or ftplicity.
>>>> which
>>>> are build around rsync)
>>>>
>>>> And then this idiotic cretinous clown Snot/Snit Michael Glasser comes along
>>>> and tells us that his stupid backup tool is the be all of them.
>>>
>>> Well, Snit saw the ads on teevee...
>>
>> Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
>
> You said it.
> The typical COLA gangbang....
> I hear Marti begs to go last :(
Peter makes up a story about me seeing something on TV. Completely makes it
up... and a story about my saying the one choice mentioned is better than
all others for all people... just another flat out lie by Peter.
And Chris A. sees Peter's lie - and instead of denouncing it or even just
ignoring it, he *backs* it. He openly supports dishonesty.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Juan
> Anyone who is worried about the NSA cracking blowfish encryption on your
> account to access your backups has no business using online backups to begin
> with. The NSA has much bigger things to worry about than Homer's backups.
> People who worry about this sort of thing have their tin-foil helmet on way
> too tight.
I'm sure [Homer] and some of the other conspiracy nuts are on the
radar but it's a low priority and more than likely related to them
snapping at some point and becoming the next Una-Bomber.
+1 about hiding information online.
> It's ironic that people who worry about the NSA decrypting backups are often
> the same people who have no problems at all giving all of their information
> to Google in plain text via "cloud computing."
Ain't it amazing?
They are just a bunch of hypocrites.
Hadron
He openly tells lies. I suspect he's bullied at work (if he does any as
he seems to be spamming this group most of the day) and uses COLA to
play the kingpin. And in fairness he is more technical than WronG,
Gordon, HPT and co.
chrisv
>I can't get a V12 engine in the car I like, and I can live with that
>just fine. For those who really must have a V12, fine, they can
>cough-up the money for a car that gives them that choice.
A better example would have been "diesel" engine.
JEDIDIAH
> Homer laid this down on his screen :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>
>>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>>
>> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
>> local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
>> measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
>> Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
>> particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
>> supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
>>
>> OTOH, Carbonite gives you a (deceptively labelled) "unlimited" backup,
>> at just broadband speeds, sent to some mysterious datacentre in Boston,
>> which the NSA can raid at any time without warrant (using a NSL), and
>> which is also vulnerable to hackers, or downtime at the least convenient
>> moment. And for the privilege of using this slow and insecure backup
>> system, one is expected to pay $54.95 per year.
>>
>> What's to "love" about that?
>
> Simple - it's off site. If my house burns down, I get a new computer
> plug it in, and download my data. It's automatic. It's easy to
> maintain.
So are any number of disk/tape based methods that allow you to unplug
the disk and take it to your office or a friends house.
[deletia]
--
The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is |||
that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse / | \
for it.
Peter Köhlmann
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> Juan stated in post 57ojs7lokrt6$.120zxofqcjp5k$.d...@40tude.net on 1/6/11
>> 12:27 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>> If you don't like the best of them, rsync (or duplicity, or ftplicity.
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> are build around rsync)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then this idiotic cretinous clown Snot/Snit Michael Glasser comes
>>>>>> along and tells us that his stupid backup tool is the be all of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Snit saw the ads on teevee...
>>>>
>>>> Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
>>>
>>> You said it.
>>> The typical COLA gangbang....
>>> I hear Marti begs to go last :(
>>
>> Peter makes up a story about me seeing something on TV. Completely makes
>> it up... and a story about my saying the one choice mentioned is better
>> than all others for all people... just another flat out lie by Peter.
Now Snot/Snit Michael Glasser is *again* off his meds. He is attributing to me
what I have never said, him seeing something on TV.
Or about his choice of backup software. Both I have never said, much less to
him, as his idiotic drivel is filtered for lifetime. I simply don't want to
see that cretins worthless drivel, as there is no worse liar than Snit Michal
Glasser. Even Hadron Larry Snot Quark falls short in that regard, as he is far
too stupid to think of any "good" lies
But then, this is just Michael Glasser: By far thwe most worthless parasite
and leech on all of usenet. He is a parasite for letting his wife put food on
the table in order to have time to post his drivel all over usenet 24/7
--
The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and
smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism.
One-Shot, One-Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:487ci6d20rthqgomr...@4ax.com...
>
> A better example would have been "diesel" engine.
>
a better example would be your ugly whore mother getting an abortion instead
of letting a usless fscking turd like you live.
Tom Shelton
Yes... but, they also require you to own hardware and physically
transport the media.
I don't understand all the animous to this sort of service, it's in my
opinion one of the valid uses of the cloud.
--
Tom Shelton
Snit
2:23 PM:
> Hadron Larry Snot Quark snotted:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>
>>> Juan stated in post 57ojs7lokrt6$.120zxofqcjp5k$.d...@40tude.net on 1/6/11
>>> 12:27 PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>> If you don't like the best of them, rsync (or duplicity, or ftplicity.
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> are build around rsync)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then this idiotic cretinous clown Snot/Snit Michael Glasser comes
>>>>>>> along and tells us that his stupid backup tool is the be all of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Snit saw the ads on teevee...
>>>>>
>>>>> Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> You said it.
>>>> The typical COLA gangbang....
>>>> I hear Marti begs to go last :(
>>>
>>> Peter makes up a story about me seeing something on TV. Completely makes
>>> it up... and a story about my saying the one choice mentioned is better
>>> than all others for all people... just another flat out lie by Peter.
>
> Now Snot/Snit Michael Glasser is *again* off his meds. He is attributing to me
> what I have never said, him seeing something on TV.
Ah, it was your lying buddy Chris A. My mistake. Here are the lies you
told:
And then this idiotic cretinous clown Snot/Snit Michael
Glasser comes along and tells us that his stupid backup
tool is the be all of them.
So let us be clear what your complaint is: as you and your herd were
stampeding and lying, I attributed the wrong *lie* to you.
Yup... I made a mistake. I misattributed a lie. My mistake.
Poor Peter, always the victim.
> Or about his choice of backup software. Both I have never said, much less to
> him, as his idiotic drivel is filtered for lifetime. I simply don't want to
> see that cretins worthless drivel, as there is no worse liar than Snit Michal
> Glasser. Even Hadron Larry Snot Quark falls short in that regard, as he is far
> too stupid to think of any "good" lies
>
> But then, this is just Michael Glasser: By far thwe most worthless parasite
> and leech on all of usenet. He is a parasite for letting his wife put food on
> the table in order to have time to post his drivel all over usenet 24/7
You do realize what a poor light you are putting yourself in... right?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> Homer laid this down on his screen :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>
>>> I admit it... I use carbonite - and I love it :)
>>
>> Meanwhile, I use rsync for free, over a 1Gb/s LAN, sent to a secure
>> local server that only I have access to, with an expandable capacity
>> measured in terabytes. And at no time do I ever need to wonder if the
>> Free Software used to accomplish this task is supported by any
>> particular OS or device, because ... it's Free Software, and thus
>> supported by anything that runs Linux (even my Android smartphone)
>>
>> OTOH, Carbonite gives you a (deceptively labelled) "unlimited"
>> backup, at just broadband speeds, sent to some mysterious datacentre
>> in Boston, which the NSA can raid at any time without warrant (using
>> a NSL), and which is also vulnerable to hackers, or downtime at the
>> least convenient moment. And for the privilege of using this slow and
>> insecure backup system, one is expected to pay $54.95 per year.
>>
>> What's to "love" about that?
>
> Simple - it's off site.
So is my local server.
You assume that a "local" server must be in the same building, or that
the only way to archive local backups in on-site.
> If my house burns down, I get a new computer plug it in, and download
> my data.
Same here, except I do so at 1Gb/s, and for free.
> It's automatic.
I'm fairly willing to bet my method is more automated. Will "Carbonite"
restore a bare-metal backup to a virgin machine, for example, or do you
need to install the OS and backup software first? Will it replicate that
backup, in case of storage failure? Many a system has been lost due to
assumptions made about the integrity of the backup.
> It's easy to maintain.
Whereas I don't need to do any backup maintenance at all.
> As far as data security, everything is encrypted. And, to be honest,
> I'm not at all scared about the NSA looking at my data.
It isn't about fear, it's about the right to privacy. This is important
enough for individuals, but for businesses it's a very practical
consideration. The reason you don't publish CCTV footage of your
activates in your bedroom or bathroom, is presumably not because you're
hiding criminal activity. Why should you care any less about your other
private activities, like E-mail or other data?
And I think you're being very naive if you think the NSA, or other
parties, don't have the means to access your data, encrypted or
otherwise. Encrypted data is compromised every day, and not necessarily
only by cracking encryption algorithms. The frequency with which DRM and
other data "protection" mechanisms is circumvented, should have taught
you that much.
I think you're also overestimating the benevolence of the NSA. They
consider citizens' rights and due process to be nothing more than
impediments to the government's agenda du jour, which these days is
largely dictated by "special interests". Since at least the introduction
of The Patriot Act in the US, RIPA in the UK, and similar marshal law
type legislation elsewhere, those "rights" no longer exist, and it
really doesn't matter how innocent you are, either to the government or
the "special interests" that control it. And we all now know this is
more than just paranoid speculation, thanks to organisations like
Wikileaks.
> No one is forcing you to use it (oh, wait you can't!)
And the Xbox 360 can't play PS3 exclusive games either. Does that mean
the Xbox 360 doesn't have any games? In fact there's plenty of online
backup services for Linux, and other platforms besides Windows, for
those foolish enough to use those services:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_backup_services
Companies are free to limit their market exposure if they want to, by
exclusively supporting just one platform, but they may as well just give
their money away to their competitors.
> but, I like the service, and it's saved my butt a couple of times.
Hey, it's your data, and your risk.
--
K. | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ignorant twits who know nothing
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 13 days | about GNU/Linux."
TomB
> chrisv stated in post b7sbi699t1q8tp90t...@4ax.com on 1/6/11
> 9:46 AM:
>
>>> There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services
>>> for GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise
>>> grade solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet
>>> that GNU/Linux offer more choice in this particular case than any
>>> other OS.
>>
>> And even if it has "less choice", it wouldn't make magically
>> "unsuitable" or "inferior" for huge swarths of the market. Some
>> choices simply are not needed.
>
> But when it is noted that Linux offers a choice Windows or OS X does
> not, then *that* choice is of utmost importance. The hypocracy here
> is absurd.
Take a step back. Look at the name of the newsgroup you're posting
this in. Yes, it's comp.os.linux.advocacy.
If you come in here and expect no bias at all towards GNU/Linux, now
/that/ is absurd.
Ha!
Of course we think that doing remote back-ups with rsync to a server
controlled by ourselves is a much better option than using a closed an
proprietary solution such as Carbonite. That's how your typical
GNU/Linux geek thinks. We honestly don't care about Carbonite or
similar solutions not being available to us.
--
Iedereen wil erop, maar ze is te stijl.
~ Walter Grootaers
Snit
> On 2011-01-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> chrisv stated in post b7sbi699t1q8tp90t...@4ax.com on 1/6/11
>> 9:46 AM:
>>
>>>> There is no shortage of backup software, solutions, and services
>>>> for GNU/Linux. From basic "backup this directory", to enterprise
>>>> grade solutions, and even exabyte distributed storage. I would bet
>>>> that GNU/Linux offer more choice in this particular case than any
>>>> other OS.
>>>
>>> And even if it has "less choice", it wouldn't make magically
>>> "unsuitable" or "inferior" for huge swarths of the market. Some
>>> choices simply are not needed.
>>
>> But when it is noted that Linux offers a choice Windows or OS X does
>> not, then *that* choice is of utmost importance. The hypocracy here
>> is absurd.
>
> Take a step back. Look at the name of the newsgroup you're posting
> this in. Yes, it's comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Irrelevant.
> If you come in here and expect no bias at all towards GNU/Linux, now
> /that/ is absurd.
>
> Ha!
OK, it is not reasonable to expect "advocates" to offer honest advocacy,
they have to instead offer biased claims. Got it.
> Of course we think that doing remote back-ups with rsync to a server
> controlled by ourselves is a much better option than using a closed an
> proprietary solution such as Carbonite.
Funny how on one hand it is not as important... and on the other there are
solutions that do the same thing... the claims of the "advocates" are
inconsistent and contradictory. Do you just think your fellow "advocates"
who make such claims are wrong?
> That's how your typical GNU/Linux geek thinks. We honestly don't care about
> Carbonite or similar solutions not being available to us.
Which is not relevant.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Also ask him who this "us" is : since TomB's views and likes are
invariably totally different to the majority of the "advocates". Pro
Linux of course. But I am too. This doesnt mean I have to agree with
loonies like Homer or Koehlmann or accept the blatant dishonesty and
vile personal attacks and bad language from the likes of Chris Ahsltrom
when he gets his arse handed to him on a plate once again.
chrisv
> Shit wrote:
>>
>> chrisv stated:
>>>
>>> And even if it has "less choice", it wouldn't make magically
>>> "unsuitable" or "inferior" for huge swarths of the market. Some
>>> choices simply are not needed.
>>
>> But when it is noted that Linux offers a choice Windows or OS X does
>> not, then *that* choice is of utmost importance.
Nope. You are a liar, Shit.
We fully accept that different people have different needs. We don't
believe that Linux is for everyone. We have no problems with you
choosing OSX and iTunes, if those tools work for you.
>>The hypocracy here is absurd.
On the part of you trolls, sure.
One-Shot, One-Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Nope. You are a liar, Shit.
you're a stupid fscking piece of shit asshole, chrisv.
Snit
3:31 PM:
> TomB wrote:
>
>> Shit wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv stated:
>>>>
>>>> And even if it has "less choice", it wouldn't make magically
>>>> "unsuitable" or "inferior" for huge swarths of the market. Some
>>>> choices simply are not needed.
>>>
>>> But when it is noted that Linux offers a choice Windows or OS X does
>>> not, then *that* choice is of utmost importance.
>
> Nope. You are a liar, Shit.
>
> We fully accept that different people have different needs. We don't
> believe that Linux is for everyone. We have no problems with you
> choosing OSX and iTunes, if those tools work for you.
And yet when benefits of other systems are noted they are ridiculed.
>>> The hypocracy here is absurd.
>
> On the part of you trolls, sure.
Why do you talk about yourself in third person?
>> Take a step back. Look at the name of the newsgroup you're posting
>> this in. Yes, it's comp.os.linux.advocacy.
>>
>> If you come in here and expect no bias at all towards GNU/Linux, now
>> /that/ is absurd.
>>
>> Ha!
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
> friendly.
Enabling BITS is probably not a smart move, given that it's a key
component of what allows things like this to happen:
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-without-users-consent
Chris Ahlstrom
> Yes... but, they also require you to own hardware and physically
> transport the media.
>
> I don't understand all the animous to this sort of service, it's in my
> opinion one of the valid uses of the cloud.
Personally, I prefer what you said in your first sentence.
Also, Carbonite's imperviousness to Linux makes me think "up yours".
--
I'm going to Boston to see my doctor. He's a very sick man.
-- Fred Allen
Snit
1/6/11 3:43 PM:
> Tom Shelton pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> Yes... but, they also require you to own hardware and physically
>> transport the media.
>>
>> I don't understand all the animous to this sort of service, it's in my
>> opinion one of the valid uses of the cloud.
>
> Personally, I prefer what you said in your first sentence.
>
> Also, Carbonite's imperviousness to Linux makes me think "up yours".
And this is what it is all about... Carbonite does not support Linux so
there is anger and sour grapes. If it was on Linux and not on Windows / OS
X it would be seen as the best thing ever.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tom Shelton
> Tom Shelton pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> Yes... but, they also require you to own hardware and physically
>> transport the media.
>>
>> I don't understand all the animous to this sort of service, it's in my
>> opinion one of the valid uses of the cloud.
>
> Personally, I prefer what you said in your first sentence.
>
> Also, Carbonite's imperviousness to Linux makes me think "up yours".
Well, they only recently started supporting OS/X - maybe if there were
enough of an insentive, then they might write an linux client....
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>
>> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
>> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
>> friendly.
>
> Enabling BITS is probably not a smart move, given that it's a key
> component of what allows things like this to happen:
>
> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-without-users-consent
Paranoid lately.
--
Tom Shelton
Snit
3:50 PM:
And then the "advocates" would tout it as an advantage of Linux.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Juan
> Tom Shelton pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> Yes... but, they also require you to own hardware and physically
>> transport the media.
>>
>> I don't understand all the animous to this sort of service, it's in my
>> opinion one of the valid uses of the cloud.
>
> Personally, I prefer what you said in your first sentence.
>
> Also, Carbonite's imperviousness to Linux makes me think "up yours".
You sure must have a lot up "yours" because at least 6 different,
very popular programs and devices, were posted here within the last
24 hours and NONE of them work with Linux.
It's just a case of sour grapes with you hypocrite idiots.
Juan
Bingo.....
The nasty, self righteous, hypocritical Linux community crawls right
out of the wood work.
If all these examples of Linux not supporting certain software all
worked with Linux and not with Windows, the freetards would be
swarming the place claiming how great these programs are.
William Poaster
6/1/2011 22:50 shattered the silence with:
Well why not. After all M$ owns the computer, in spite of the poor saps
using M$ Windows who think *they* own it.
http://www.zoliblog.com/2007/09/14/you-think-you-own-your-computer-think-twice-microsoft-shows-whos-boss/
--
Save the planet......fart in a jar!
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit
Juan
Lately?
[Homer] is the very definition of paranoid.
The guy is a true nut case.
He should be locked up and under heavy sedation.
JEDIDIAH
> TomB wrote:
>
>> Shit wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv stated:
>>>>
>>>> And even if it has "less choice", it wouldn't make magically
>>>> "unsuitable" or "inferior" for huge swarths of the market. Some
>>>> choices simply are not needed.
>>>
>>> But when it is noted that Linux offers a choice Windows or OS X does
>>> not, then *that* choice is of utmost importance.
>
> Nope. You are a liar, Shit.
>
> We fully accept that different people have different needs. We don't
> believe that Linux is for everyone. We have no problems with you
> choosing OSX and iTunes, if those tools work for you.
...well, there is the vendor-lock issue with iTunes.
[deletia]
--
Apple: Being able to install Firefox or VLC makes you a power user. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
I dunno.
"Can barely be bothered to support MacOS" doesn't really inspire much
confidence or trust.
Homer
> Homer presented the following explanation :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>
>>> The corporate licenses seem to be farily reasonable. It's use of
>>> Windows BITS service to upload the data makes it very bandwidth
>>> friendly.
>>
>> Enabling BITS is probably not a smart move, given that it's a key
>> component of what allows things like this to happen:
>>
>> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-without-users-consent
>
> Paranoid lately.
Are you claiming the above is just a figment of my imagination?
Hadron
Lady Gaga is, beneath the outrageous clothes, a wonderful composer
arranger and singer. Google her up singing Paparazzi live at the radio
station.
I'd assumed she was a talentless bimbo too : but its not the case.
Juan
> Lady Gaga is, beneath the outrageous clothes, a wonderful composer
> arranger and singer. Google her up singing Paparazzi live at the radio
> station.
In the context of today's music, true.
Not much different than Elton John and his wacky outfits.
Let's see if her stuff is still being played 30 years from now
though.
> I'd assumed she was a talentless bimbo too : but its not the case.
She's talented, and unlike Madonna she's not a bimbo, but like I
said in the context of today's music.
Compared to what else is out there.....Ugh...
She ain't no Carole King.
Time and history will be the great equalizer as to whether she
survives or not.
Hadron
Paparrazi will remain a classic. Poker Face is up there. And there's
plenty more to come. I have heard from people who have seen her live and
all have raved : she doesnt lip sync and its a super show.
All that said I dont have a single from here.
Sinister Midget III
> I don't understand all the animous to this sort of service, it's in my
> opinion one of the valid uses of the cloud.
I use an offsite backup. And an onsite one, too. I see advantages to
both approaches. Especially the fact that I can sync directories on
more than one machine and download items that are backed up and not
synced to any machine I choose by using a cloud backup service. The
manual method I employ requires me to manually swap drives in a lockbox
every month.
But those are the sorts of effort I'm willing to go to for the sort of
redundancy I want.
--
She had more Chins than the Chinese phonebook!
Aspire One, Peppermint Ice
Friends don't let friends use Windows