Subject: Re: why use Amanda? (was: FYI: upgrading GNU tar)
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Dan Melomedman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/14/2002 19:00:29
Greg A. Woods wrote:
> You have the amanda source. It's not really that hard to adjust for
> other tar implementations, though ideally it would be adjusted once and
> for all to expect a portable tool like 'pax'. :-)
Some software is designed such that no coding needs to be done as long
as interfaces are compatible - administrator friendliness.
> flame bait? Obviously 'pax' is now the best 'tar' program available! ;-)
Rather my opinion.
> Security? It's certainly good enough if you trust the security of your
> local LAN. Surely you are not trying to make your backup system cross
> an insecure network, are you?
That is if you trust everybody on your LAN. There have been holes in
> > there's too much guessing done by the scheduler among other ad-hockery.
Not flame bait, read AMANDA's logs while it's doing its thing,
you'll understand. Also take a look at the source.
> > What I am looking for is a
> > simple yet flexible site-wide backup tools, and yet to find them. Has
> > anyone tried afbackup?
> "simple yet flexible site-wide backup tools" is one of those sets of
> requirements that goes with the rule "Pick any two."
I disagree, I just think AMANDA and a few other related packages have
been "good enough" for most people, including myself; so is the lack of
simple and flexible tools.