...making Linux just a little more fun!
[ In reference to "Laptop review: Averatec 5400 series" in LG#108 ]
John Karns [johnkarns at gmail.com]
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Ben Okopnik ([email protected]): > > > I'd like to correct one common misapprehension, though: you don't have > > to learn to program in order to use Linux. in fact, the skills you need > > to use it are the same ones that you need for using Windows. > > Actually, I think it's time we counter the hoary "you have to be a > programmer to use Linux" farrago with a far more credible counter-meme: > You really must be a programmer to stand a chance of not being > horribly frustrated by MS-Windows. > > Consider how many times we've heard from MS-Windows users that the poor > security architecture, corruption-prone registry, spyware-infested > proprietary software marketplace, fragile and fragmentation-tending > filesystems, and so on have driven them to utter distraction.
So true! My sister just told me how she had recently suffered the loss of all the data on her laptop, collected over at least three years. It was all due to a family member visiting a Web site that infected the system with some kind of virus. Her comment to me was something like "I just hate computers!" My retort was the usual "The problem is not inherent to 'computers', but MS Windows's inferior design. You really ought to have Linux installed."
It's really sad when there is not even the slightest awareness that the monopoly OS is not the only choice available.
Unfortunately, she and her spouse are at a total loss as to how to approach it, other than calling the Geek Squad to re-install the inferior system, and wait for it to happen all over again sometime in the future.
-- John
Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]
On Wednesday 30 April 2008 03:10, John Karns wrote:
> > So true! My sister just told me how she had recently suffered the > loss of all the data on her laptop, collected over at least three > years. It was all due to a family member visiting a Web site that > infected the system with some kind of virus. Her comment to me was > something like "I just hate computers!" My retort was the usual "The > problem is not inherent to 'computers', but MS Windows's inferior > design. You really ought to have Linux installed."
That does depend on how you define the problem(s).
In this case, a lack of backups seems to be one of the problems. If the hard disk had died, she would still have lost her data, but we couldn't blame Bill.
Installing Linux helps with one class of problem (even Linux isn't 100% secure), but it isn't the whole solution.
I should have a better backup strategy too ;-)
Neil
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Quoting Neil Youngman ([email protected]):
> That does depend on how you define the problem(s). > > In this case a lack of backups seems to be one of the problems. If the > hard disk had died she would still have lost her data, but we couldn't > blame Bill.
To a degree, you can: MS-DOS / MS-Windows systems have historically had relatively poor and unreliable segregation of user data files from system files, making it rather more difficult to back up only the files that merit inclusion in backup sets. Thus the attitude I commonly see in Linux newcomers (and even in longtime Linux users who ought to know better -- harrumph!) of "Oh, backup means just making a separate copy of the entire hard disk."
Knowing which directories need backup and which would be pointless is much easier on *ixes (well, except for ones with peculiarly botched trees, like OS X). Thus "Backup Scheme" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Admin/ , in fact.
Neil Youngman [ny at youngman.org.uk]
On Friday 02 May 2008 00:47, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Neil Youngman ([email protected]): > > That does depend on how you define the problem(s). > > > > In this case, a lack of backups seems to be one of the problems. If the > > hard disk had died, she would still have lost her data, but we couldn't > > blame Bill. > > To a degree, you can: MS-DOS / MS-Windows systems have historically had > relatively poor and unreliable segregation of user data files from > system files, making it rather more difficult to back up only the files > that merit inclusion in backup sets. Thus the attitude I commonly see > in Linux newcomers (and even in longtime Linux users who ought to know > better -- harrumph!) of "Oh, backup means just making a separate copy of > the entire hard disk."
Ah yes, I recently transferred some data between 2 XP systems. The Files and Settings transfer Wizard missed 90% of the key data. Most of the "documentation" seems to suggest that it will transfer everything. I think, in practice it will transfer files and settings related to MS applications and files in your "desktop". It's a good job I didn't blindly trust it.
Neil
John Karns [johnkarns at gmail.com]
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Neil Youngman ([email protected]): > > > That does depend on how you define the problem(s). > > > > In this case, a lack of backups seems to be one of the problems. If the > > hard disk had died, she would still have lost her data, but we couldn't > > blame Bill. > > To a degree, you can: MS-DOS / MS-Windows systems have historically had > relatively poor and unreliable segregation of user data files from > system files, making it rather more difficult to back up only the files > that merit inclusion in backup sets.
Now that you mention it, that's just one more of the myriad annoyances that have plagued me with that OS family over the years. Sine I can remember, I've always created my own Dir branch off of the root dir where I save all my personal data. Which does make it easier to copy off my own data. However, every time when a saving a new document, one has to override the default of saving to the MyDocuments branch.
> Thus the attitude I commonly see > in Linux newcomers (and even in longtime Linux users who ought to know > better -- harrumph!) of "Oh, backup means just making a separate copy of > the entire hard disk."
As for myself, I define "backup" to mean having the entire system backed up in a format so that, in the event that it is necessary to re-install from scratch, I don't have to go through the pain of first installing the OS, then the apps, and finally my data.
-- John
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Quoting John Karns ([email protected]):
> As for myself, I define "backup" to mean having the entire system > backed up in a format so that in the event that it is necessary to > re-install from scratch, I don't have to go through the pain of first > installing the OS, then the apps, and finally my data.
This assumes that the OS/apps installation need involve pain. Over at chez Moen, that's as follows:
1. Use any Debian installation media (Debian netinst, Sidux, whatever)
to install an absolutely minimal microsystem -- just enough to be barely
functional and have package management tools.
2. Symlink "/opt" to new dir /usr/local/opt. ("/opt" is dumb. Make it
at least live somewhere halfway rational.)
3. scp over the latest ASCII file snapshot of the output of
dpkg --get-selections "*"
Prune it to eliminate libs and anything whose need is doubtful.
4. dpkg --set-selections < [that file]
5. apt-get dselect-upgrade
Let it do its job for about half an hour.
6. Copy over the snapshot tarball of /etc. Apply as needed.
Total elapsed time would be about an hour or so, and inevitably you get a much better built system than just dumping back a file-by-file replica of your old OS, apps, and conffiles.
Anyway, that aside, your OS and apps probably comprise an immense quantity of bytes, and changes very little most of the time -- so bloating your backup sets with the whole mess every single time is a ridiculous waste. If you're determined to make backup snapshots of that large set of files -- which seems to have little utility, to me -- then at minimum you should consider backing those up separately on a decoupled and suitable (less frequent) schedule.
John Karns [johnkarns at gmail.com]
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting John Karns ([email protected]): > > > As for myself, I define "backup" to mean having the entire system > > backed up in a format so that in the event that it is necessary to > > re-install from scratch, I don't have to go through the pain of first > > installing the OS, then the apps, and finally my data. > > This assumes that the OS/apps installation need involve pain. Over at > chez Moen, that's as follows: > > 1. Use any Debian installation media (Debian netinst, Sidux, whatever) to > install an absolutely minimal microsystem -- just enough to be barely > functional and have package management tools.
[snip]
There I was referring more to dealing with the Monopoly OS than with
Linux., mostly since my first comment in the thread was in reference
to a 3rd-party monopoly OS system. My personal experience in dealing
with system problems relating to that OS family almost invariably are
painful. 
When backing up those systems, I don't think that one can do a tar-style backup, and have it run after a restore. The only way I've been able to reliably restore that kind of system is from an image backup, so that the system files retain their relative positioning within the filesystem.
I've filed your suggestion appropriately for later reference for my
next Linux backup.
-- John