51–60 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The name is very similar to the GPL software Duplicity, and the license is not a free software license.
While I'd agree it's similar, it's not the same. Public projects on GitHub do not need to be under an open source license - there is absolutely no requirement for that anywhere.
For about the last year or so I've been looking for an online backup system with the following requirements: - Off-site storage, preferably not costing too much. - Option for on-site storage (e.g., to store a backup "in the cloud" and on my NAS) - Keeps version history, with the associated goodies (purging old backups, etc) - Able to run on FreeBSD and Linux, with Windows and MacOS being nice to have but not required…
https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/
I have posted it to maybe help a few people who want to do backups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507656
I think I understand the goals of the "fair source" license but why not make it copyleft all around, and just sell hosted version to small biz, and license exceptions to corporate clients?
Nobody needs the exception so they won't buy it. That business model only works for copyleft libraries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK Tarsnap backups go through Tarsnap's server but every other backup tool seems to not have that requirement.
Does this mean Tarsnap de-dupes before encrypting? That doesn't seem to make sense but I don't see any other reason going through their server would be required.
Reported to Github, as Commercial software masquerading as various open free license projects (MIT, GPL, BSD, etc.). Also, intentional namespace pollution with existing backup tool, which IS gpl'ed. Not cool. Not cool at all. ____________________________________ (response, since I'm submitting 'too fast'... ): Github has commercial repos, and private repos. It's pretty simple, really. If you want the free options on…
The verdict of the "open source competition" in Duplicacy's README is not entirely accurate. Exclusive locking in the sync'd approach is just the easiest implementation, not the sole possibility. I can't speak for other tools, since I do not know their internals well enough, but I can say about Borg ( http://www.borgbackup.org/ ) that there is no inherent issue in running the important parts of making backups (i.e. u…
I might be wrong but I want to hear more from you if you're a Borg developer. My understanding is that you may be able to have multiple clients uploading chunks at the same time, but you won't be able to exploit cross-client deduplication if different clients have a similar set of files (OS files or a large code base for instance). Moreover, if your implementation require locks then it would be very hard to extend to…
The only operation which inherently has to be guarded by a lock in Borg is inserting the archive pointer into the manifest (root object, see https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/latest/internals/data-s...). I suppose it would be possible to work around that without locking or to use the usual hacks around EC, put/get/check/get/check?put/get/check?put etc. until it's "probably there".
Deleting / pruning archives would still require a full lock due to the same conceptual issues that your two-phase GC avoids. The same goes for "check".
Reported to Github, as Commercial software masquerading as various open free license projects (MIT, GPL, BSD, etc.). Also, intentional namespace pollution with existing backup tool, which IS gpl'ed. Not cool. Not cool at all. ____________________________________ (response, since I'm submitting 'too fast'... ): Github has commercial repos, and private repos. It's pretty simple, really. If you want the free options on…
Or you know, since it's written in Go, how about GoDuplicate, GoBackup, etc.
I like giving people the benefit of the doubt, but it's just so similar and they have so many obvious pun options that even the most uncreative person probably would have come up with a more unique name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, how's it masquerading as what?
The name is very similar to the GPL software Duplicity, and the license is not a free software license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK Tarsnap backups go through Tarsnap's server but every other backup tool seems to not have that requirement.
Does this mean Tarsnap de-dupes before encrypting? That doesn't seem to make sense but I don't see any other reason going through their server would be required.
The tarsnap server provides a transactional KV store-- "In order to create a new archive, the tarsnap client sends a "write transaction start" request, many "write data" requests, and a "commit transaction" request to the tarsnap server; deleting an archive is similar (except with a "delete transaction start" and "delete data" requests)." http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2008-12-14-how-tarsnap-uses-...