Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 24 Feb 2007 12:24 On Sat, 24 Feb 07 13:44:56 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >Another method was to do a full backup save each day. This will >work until you find that you lost a source file sometime in the >last 12 years. Now how do you find the last save of that file? Bwuahahahahahahahaah! You know nothing about developmental hierarchies anymore either! That is... if you ever did.
From: MassiveProng on 24 Feb 2007 12:25 On Sat, 24 Feb 07 13:46:30 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >It's my business to watch the computing usage trends. You can't watch >the outside of any box if you're penned up inside it. Bwuahahahahahahaha! and yet, you ARE indeed penned up in one, and you don't even know it.
From: MassiveProng on 24 Feb 2007 12:30 On Sat, 24 Feb 07 13:53:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>We are talking about a backup. You can just copy the entire hard disk >>when it is a single PC. > >That is not a backup of the files. You're an idiot! A mirror of your drive volume whether kept on site or off, IS a backup, you total twit! > >YOu seem to be talking about a bit-to-bit copy. You are stupid. The mode does NOT matter. The finished copy is ALL that matters. > That will also >copy errors which don't exist on the output device. You are too thick. Do you even know what an incremental backup is? It starts by making a FULL backup. From that point on, each additional backup done to the volume only adds those files that have changed. The volume written to follows all the standard FILE SYSTEM rules for one file being copied over another of the same name. Again, you need to BONE UP.
From: MassiveProng on 24 Feb 2007 12:36 On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:51:13 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <erpaqn$8ss_004(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ermuv0$rph$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ermmos$8qk_002(a)s774.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>>>>>>I use electronic banking. I go to the banks web site and do it. It is >>>>>>>just another "surfing the web" case. I don't have any special software >>to >>>>>>>do it. I am far from the normal user but even I didn't add anything >>>>>>>beyond the web browser to do my banking. >>>>>> >>>>>>Since you have already converted to on-line banking, why are >>>>>>you disputing my statements about it? >>>>> >>>>>I am disputing your incorrect statements. >>>> >>>>You cannot know what is incorrect because you've already been >>>>herded into doing online banking. >>> >>>You are completely off your nut on this. >> >>Not at all. You are already herded into the corral. You will >>never experience the pressure that will push the rest into >>that pen. > >It isn't a corral. A corral implies a loss of freedom. I can still write >a check or see a teller if I want. I can pay a bill while I'm at work of >on vacation. I have lost nothing. > She certainly seems to have lost several trillion neural connections, however.
From: MassiveProng on 24 Feb 2007 12:42
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:26:11 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <erpfvv$8qk_001(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ermvfo$rph$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ermm1f$8qk_001(a)s774.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <era3ti$tvp$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>[.....] >>>>>> The problem is that the software side >>>>>>of the biz is dragging its heels and the hardware types are >>>>>>getting away with not including assists to the OS guys. >>>>> >>>>>The most hardware guys have to design hardware to run with Windows. >>>> >>>>Sigh! Windows' OS has a grandfather that required those hardware >>>>assists. Your point is making an excuse for lousy design >>>>requirements. >>> >>>No, I am pointing out what has really happened. Windows was written to >>>run on the usual DOS hardware. Gradually, features got added until it >>>needed more stuff than DOS. If I designed a 4096 by 4096 display, I >>>wouldn't sell very many unless I could make a windows driver for it. >>> >>> >>>[.....] >>>>>Even just suggesting that there be true backups of peoples machines throws >>>>>them into a panic. >>>> >>>>Good. That's why you should just say the words. That will have >>>>a ripple effect throughout the industry. >>> >>>No, I need my computer to work and be backed up. I don't give the hind >>>most 3/4 of a rat what happens to the average windows user's data. >> >>I know that you don't care. I do care. That is why you don't >>understand about all kinds of computing usage and I do. > >You are assuming that I don't know about things I don't care about this is >a serious error on your part. I know that there are many people out there >who have not yet seen the light and still run Windows. I know that these >people are doomed to lose valuable data at some time in the future. I >know that fixing this will require some software that gets around things >Windows does. I don't run Windows. I run Linux. As a result, I want to >back up my data on a Linux box. I also want to protect my self from the >bad effects of Windows losing data on someone else's machine. This is why >I raise the issue. > > >>>>> "Imagine an evil person gets to the PC, deletes all >>>>>the files of that user and reformats the harddisk on the machine. How >>>>>long would it take to put it all back as a working system?" has been the >>>>>question I have asked. >>>> >>>>Instead of saying evil person, just say lightning strike or power >>>>surge or blizzard/hurricane when everything shuts down for 2 weeks. >>> >>>That is a lot less damage than an evil person can cause. Backing up by >>>storing on two computers will serve to protect against lightning. >> >>No it won't. There a billions of dollars spent on trying to >>make one set of computing services non-local. > >Either, you just lack imagination about what an evil person can do or you >over estimate the problem caused by something like a lightning strike. An >evil person can destroy any copy on any machine he has the ability to >write to. This means that he can delete all the data on the remote >machines too. This is why you need a write only memory in the system. > >[.....] >>>>>On just a sinlge PC it is quite easy. >>>> >>>>No, it is not. The way files, directories, structures and MOST >>>>importantly, data has been organized makes it almost impossible >>>>to manage files on a PC. >>> >>>We are talking about a backup. You can just copy the entire hard disk >>>when it is a single PC. >> >>That is not a backup of the files. >> >>YOu seem to be talking about a bit-to-bit copy. That will also >>copy errors which don't exist on the output device. > >I am talking of a complete and total and correct image of the drive. It >is a bit by bit copy. Usually it is stored onto a larger drive without >compression. If something goes bad, you can "loop back and mount" the >image. This gives you a read only exact copy of the file system as it >was. You then can simply fix the damaged file system. > > >[....] >>>>That's called an incremental backup. Great care needs to occur >>>>to combine full and incremental backups. >>> >>>No great amount of care is needed. I've done that sort of restore a few >>>times with no great trouble. Since files are stored with the modification >>>date, a copy command that checks dates does the hard part. >> >>You are very inexperience w.r.t. this computing task. > >You seem to be claiming knowledge you don't have. > >> It is not >>as easy as you make it out to be. > >It in fact can be easier. I knew someone who wrote a lot of the software >used by banks and insurance companies. They stored the data transaction >by transaction, daily and incrementals, monthly near full backups and >yearly total backups. The system for recovery was very well tested and >automated. After every software change, they had to requalify the code. >This meant restoring an old back up and making a new one and restoring >that. I assume that software like that is still the common practice. > > > >> Now think about that fact >>and all the people who are going to be doing all banking online. > >It doesn't matter if you bank on line or in person. If you bank's >computers fail, you can't do a transaction. If they lose all their >computer data, you will have a devil of a time getting at your money. >This is why I always try to keep more than one bank, a couple of credit >cards and some cash. I know that there is some risk that a bank may have >a windows machine connected to the important information. > They DO. They ALL used to run OS/2 FOR YEARS, but after Windows 2000 was in the channel for about a year, they mostly switched all there front counter "terminals" to PCs running W2k. OS/2 likely no longer runs on many of the background servers, but still may. It would be nice to have seen a world with another OS to choose from that kept up with the HW changes like the big beast did. Open source did as well, but IBM didn't take the chance at the corporate BOD level. It can be argued either way as to whether they made a hit or miss by leaving certain segments of the computing world market. |