Re: Why can't computers be simple?

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:12:19 -0400, G.T. wrote
(in article <137mj16ddg40m2e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):


"Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2007062123005311272-jollyroger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2007-06-21 14:43:35 -0500, Mark Conrad <noneof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
said:

With commercial backup app's, one is never really certain whether
something will be backed up or not, until one finds out the hard way
that something of value was not backed up.

Bull***.


Not really.

I have used commercial backup utilities for over 20 years, on Macs, DOS
machines, Windows machines, and minis/mainframes. In that time I have _never_
had _any_ commercial backup utility fail to back up what I've specified.

Now, it might be that the backup _media_ might fail, something which several
of the manuals which shipped with the various utilities has mentioned. That
is why I make _two_ backups, usually on different types of media where
possible. _Three_ backups, if the item in question is important. I have
_never_ lost data due to a problem with the backup utility, even in the days
when I used floppies to back up my stuff at home, even though at one point I
could be _certain_ that at least one floppy in any backup set would fail when
being used to restore. As the bad floppies were _always_ at different parts
of the two backup sets (proving that it wasn't the utilities problem) I could
always restore _every_ file. Now, if I'd only had _one_ backup set, I'd have
been in trouble, but then that would have been because I didn't RTFM and
because floppies are unreliable, not because the utility failed.

Perhaps you can elucidate further on these unreliable backup utilities, and
why people keep using them if they're unreliable and known to be unreliable?


--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

.