On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:58:32 -0800 A Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What a multitude of options I have! I'll probably end up not reporting > these solutions to my client, so that he'll use a more traditional > backup method. > The OpenAFS solution would be nice, if I could find it in package > form for OpenBSD, or a port for FreeBSD, but I can find neither. Also, > if it weren't for some of the reasons below, it would be a decent > solution, except for hiding the process from the users. Actually, AFS if real easy on OpenBSD. It's already there on the recent versions. Just edit rc.conf to start it up. You may have to create a root level /afs directory as well. > Having the machines auto-boot and load a hidden OS sounds like a > great idea... if I had the hardware to carry it out. I do not believe > that the motherboards support that feature. Shane also points out the > excellent fact that this is a little dangerous. Although, I didn't > mention it, I was secretly hoping for a solution that could implement > a sort of parity, similar to that of RAID5, where if one of the > computers died, the backup would still be useable. I also did not > mention that there was another backup solution in development, but > these seemed irrelevant at the time of posting. > My client didn't really like the idea of just making a windows > partition and disallowing the users from accessing it with > permissions, because then they'd know about something... And some > might complain about it being "broken" - they have several "older" > people on staff who aren't as computer literate. On the latest versions of windows, a partition does not have to have a drive letter. It can appear as a subdirectory instead. So one could hide a subdirectory where noone would look for it or think anything about it. How many people would think twice about a directory called \windows\system32\drivers\etc\fs? I bet that very few windows users would ever wonder about that, much less try to see what was in the "fs" directory and so they'd never discover they didn't have access. And if they didn't have access, they'd think it was like that out of the box. > And, honestly, I did not know that windows even has daemons. I thought > that was a Unix concept. On windows, they call it services with yet another programming interface to use them. Eric Johnson
