Alvin Oga wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Daniel Webb wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:16:29AM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
One nit to pick here:
- find | tar | gpg meeets all of my requirements for most all possible
potential disasters and recovery
As I describe on my backup page, that's a t
Alvin,
Thank you, you have answered my question. I apologize for being rude, I
should not have worded it that way.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hiya daniel
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Daniel Webb wrote:
> That's exactly what I'm saying: your tar | gpg methodology has not accounted
> for the chance of a few flipped bits, because if it had, it wouldn't lead to
> massive data loss, which it does. Compressing/encrypting after archiving is
> infer
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:36:23PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> if you don't trust find|tar ... you have major problems with the machine's
> reliability and these brand new commands nobody used for 30 yrs :-)
>
> using any other "favorite backup programs" will suffer the same fate of
> losing "huge
4 matches
Mail list logo
