Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13870 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-04 13:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-05-03 10:57 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 13:14 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2015-03-04 15:15 +0100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 14:19 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 14:32 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-03-04 08:53 -0600
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 15:08 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Kirk_Von_Rockstein <Kirk_Von_Rockstein@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-05 20:11 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-12 03:12 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-12 08:24 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn@panix.com> - 2015-03-12 19:07 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-04 09:57 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 15:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-04 11:57 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 17:14 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud John Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> - 2015-03-23 10:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Real Doctor <ian.groups@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-23 12:08 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud HarpingOn <postmaster@127.0.0.1> - 2015-03-04 15:11 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 15:22 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 15:36 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:07 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 17:15 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-04 18:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 18:55 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-04 19:13 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 19:48 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 23:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-05 07:55 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-05 09:53 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-05 12:09 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-05 14:19 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-05 19:27 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 22:04 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-05 10:04 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-05 12:28 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-05 13:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-05 11:50 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 14:24 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-03-22 15:05 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-04 14:51 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 20:16 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-10 14:44 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-11 17:45 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-03-11 14:15 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-11 15:42 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-11 23:26 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-12 18:17 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 07:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-12 12:23 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-13 07:19 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-12 08:22 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-03-12 09:14 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-12 09:39 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 09:42 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-12 16:59 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 17:20 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-03-12 12:49 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-12 19:03 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-12 10:12 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-12 18:17 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-13 07:13 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-12 20:50 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-03-12 16:08 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-12 21:24 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Capitol <spam@wher.eva.co.uk> - 2015-03-12 22:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2015-03-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2015-03-19 02:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 14:30 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-12 20:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2015-03-12 09:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-12 09:38 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-12 09:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-03-12 10:50 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-12 15:25 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-13 08:19 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-13 12:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-13 19:39 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-14 02:12 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-13 15:13 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-03-13 16:53 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-13 19:30 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-03-14 13:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 14:48 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-14 16:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 17:58 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-14 22:41 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-14 18:20 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-14 19:34 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-14 22:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 14:53 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-03-15 13:34 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-03-15 15:41 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-15 18:40 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-16 15:35 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 15:45 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-16 16:21 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-03-16 19:05 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-16 21:40 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2015-03-12 11:17 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-12 12:03 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2015-03-12 16:28 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-12 20:35 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-11 22:52 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-12 18:17 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-12 02:51 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-12 08:21 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn@panix.com> - 2015-03-12 19:09 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud HarpingOn <postmaster@127.0.0.1> - 2015-03-04 15:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 15:19 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 15:54 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 16:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:20 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-05 12:29 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 18:56 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-05 00:33 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-03-05 22:46 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-06 08:07 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-03-14 11:56 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 14:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-15 05:40 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 18:51 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-15 06:12 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 19:23 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-15 06:27 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 22:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-15 11:22 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-15 09:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tony Houghton <h@realh.co.uk> - 2015-03-15 00:08 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2015-03-15 15:34 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-03-15 18:33 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-16 07:46 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2015-03-16 00:16 +0100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-16 18:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-17 13:55 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-17 21:15 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-17 16:17 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-18 08:15 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-18 09:02 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-18 16:14 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud ruben <nowhere@nowhere.nor> - 2015-05-03 06:49 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-05-03 09:12 +0200
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-05-03 10:57 +0100
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | "John F" <j@j.ii> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdnog6$p85$1@jefelex.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #13910 |
"Tim Watts" <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote in message news:7p5ksb-n64.ln1@squidward.dionic.net... > On 04/03/15 19:51, Dan Espen wrote: > >> >> Huh? >> >> What exactly are you trying to protect? Are your kids especially ugly? >> >> I've taken plenty of pictures of people in the water. >> I don't see the issue. >> >> > > It's not a big surprise, someone not trusting external cloud providers. > Have you not seem the amount of pics hacked off various photo sharing > sites that the user really did not want to have in the public domain? > > So it's not something I need to defend really - I just don't want all my > personal stuff on someone else's servers. I have no problem with using > Google Calendar because I never have anything that interesting in there. > But if I were running an innovative company and used it to store all sorts > if meetings with interesting people, then I would think twice. Sort of ends up being much more secure on your own servers - they are not even that expensive anymore, and there is much much less likelyhood of getting your pics ripped off and other private things - !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 17:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdpv012ndt@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #14005 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] On 2015-03-10, John F <j@j.ii> wrote: > "Tim Watts" <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote in message > news:7p5ksb-n64.ln1@squidward.dionic.net... > >> On 04/03/15 19:51, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>> Huh? >>> >>> What exactly are you trying to protect? Are your kids especially ugly? >>> >>> I've taken plenty of pictures of people in the water. >>> I don't see the issue. >> >> It's not a big surprise, someone not trusting external cloud providers. >> Have you not seem the amount of pics hacked off various photo sharing >> sites that the user really did not want to have in the public domain? >> >> So it's not something I need to defend really - I just don't want all my >> personal stuff on someone else's servers. I have no problem with using >> Google Calendar because I never have anything that interesting in there. >> But if I were running an innovative company and used it to store all sorts >> if meetings with interesting people, then I would think twice. > > Sort of ends up being much more secure on your own servers - they are not > even that expensive anymore, and there is much much less likelyhood of > getting your pics ripped off and other private things - ! And once you've backed everything up on an external drive, once you unplug that drive, _nobody_ can touch it. A friend recently lost a lot of valuable photos due to Cloud failure. Even if there's no malice involved, shit happens. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 14:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r8GdnVmSCY3wCZ3InZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #14013 |
At 11 Mar 2015 17:45:37 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
>
> On 2015-03-10, John F <j@j.ii> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Watts" <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote in message
> > news:7p5ksb-n64.ln1@squidward.dionic.net...
> >
> >> On 04/03/15 19:51, Dan Espen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Huh?
> >>>
> >>> What exactly are you trying to protect? Are your kids especially ugly?
> >>>
> >>> I've taken plenty of pictures of people in the water.
> >>> I don't see the issue.
> >>
> >> It's not a big surprise, someone not trusting external cloud providers.
> >> Have you not seem the amount of pics hacked off various photo sharing
> >> sites that the user really did not want to have in the public domain?
> >>
> >> So it's not something I need to defend really - I just don't want all my
> >> personal stuff on someone else's servers. I have no problem with using
> >> Google Calendar because I never have anything that interesting in there.
> >> But if I were running an innovative company and used it to store all sorts
> >> if meetings with interesting people, then I would think twice.
> >
> > Sort of ends up being much more secure on your own servers - they are not
> > even that expensive anymore, and there is much much less likelyhood of
> > getting your pics ripped off and other private things - !
>
> And once you've backed everything up on an external drive, once you unplug
> that drive, _nobody_ can touch it.
So long as you protect it from *physical* access. Eg. lock the drive in a
safe or something.
>
> A friend recently lost a lot of valuable photos due to Cloud failure.
> Even if there's no malice involved, shit happens.
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John F" <j@j.ii> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 15:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdqg9j$d69$1@jefelex.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #14015 |
"Robert Heller" <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote in message news:r8GdnVmSCY3wCZ3InZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com... > At 11 Mar 2015 17:45:37 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> >> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] >> >> On 2015-03-10, John F <j@j.ii> wrote: >> >> > "Tim Watts" <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote in message >> > news:7p5ksb-n64.ln1@squidward.dionic.net... >> > >> >> On 04/03/15 19:51, Dan Espen wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Huh? >> >>> >> >>> What exactly are you trying to protect? Are your kids especially >> >>> ugly? >> >>> >> >>> I've taken plenty of pictures of people in the water. >> >>> I don't see the issue. >> >> >> >> It's not a big surprise, someone not trusting external cloud >> >> providers. >> >> Have you not seem the amount of pics hacked off various photo sharing >> >> sites that the user really did not want to have in the public domain? >> >> >> >> So it's not something I need to defend really - I just don't want all >> >> my >> >> personal stuff on someone else's servers. I have no problem with using >> >> Google Calendar because I never have anything that interesting in >> >> there. >> >> But if I were running an innovative company and used it to store all >> >> sorts >> >> if meetings with interesting people, then I would think twice. >> > >> > Sort of ends up being much more secure on your own servers - they are >> > not >> > even that expensive anymore, and there is much much less likelyhood of >> > getting your pics ripped off and other private things - ! >> >> And once you've backed everything up on an external drive, once you >> unplug >> that drive, _nobody_ can touch it. > > So long as you protect it from *physical* access. Eg. lock the drive in a > safe or something. > >> >> A friend recently lost a lot of valuable photos due to Cloud failure. >> Even if there's no malice involved, shit happens. >> > > -- Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server - even if the cloud server is free, it costs you in terms of dealing with the advertizing and spyware etc delivered with all the public services nowadays > Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 > Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services > http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services > heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 23:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghv6tb-n6a.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #14016 |
On 11/03/15 22:42, John F wrote: > Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in > for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server - even if > the cloud server is free, it costs you in terms of dealing with the > advertizing and spyware etc delivered with all the public services nowadays > Indeed. But to be useful in today's world, it does need to be accessible to devices - which brings me back to the original problem :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdsl7q31v4h@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #14018 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] On 2015-03-11, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 11/03/15 22:42, John F wrote: > >> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in >> for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server - even if >> the cloud server is free, it costs you in terms of dealing with the >> advertizing and spyware etc delivered with all the public services nowadays > > Indeed. > > But to be useful in today's world, it does need to be accessible to > devices - which brings me back to the original problem :) But at least if you have an offline backup (plus one or more offsite copies to be really safe), you can get your data back in the event of catastrophic failure, malware attacks, hostage situations, etc. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 07:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdrga8$sb1$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #14016 |
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:42:35 -0700, John F wrote: > Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put > it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server - > even if the cloud server is free, it costs you in terms of dealing with > the advertizing and spyware etc delivered with all the public services > nowadays I'm involved with a not-for-profit which uses Dropbox reasonably heavily. Data is backed-up automatically to DB, and then the DB account accessed by several people around the country and, on occasion, internationally. I see no ads, because I run adblockers on all my machines. I'm sure others do likewise. So what does it "cost" the organisation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John F" <j@j.ii> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdsp1b$a4$1@jefelex.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #14021 |
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mdrga8$sb1$4@speranza.aioe.org... > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:42:35 -0700, John F wrote: > >> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put >> it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server - >> even if the cloud server is free, it costs you in terms of dealing with >> the advertizing and spyware etc delivered with all the public services >> nowadays > > I'm involved with a not-for-profit which uses Dropbox reasonably heavily. > Data is backed-up automatically to DB, and then the DB account accessed > by several people around the country and, on occasion, internationally. > > I see no ads, because I run adblockers on all my machines. I'm sure > others do likewise. > > So what does it "cost" the organisation? It doesn't cost you anything - I use the same adblockers on my web browser (at home) - I very rarely see any advertizing at all, but it's the principal of the thing - if you didn't have any tracker blockers attached to your browser, they'd (advertizers) be having a heyday, and nothing makes me more furious than having my privacy invaded by some machine that thinks I want to see advertizments that I have absolutely no interest in at all! If I want something, I go and buy it - I don't wait for some advertizement to suggest I need it or whatever - I actually don't use the web that much, more VPN and usenet - so sick of the commercializm, I remember when we first started web surfing back in the early 90's and it was so nice because it had no advertizments - now that is all it is, why bother?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-13 07:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <cmeanoF7vh5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14046 |
"John F" <j@j.ii> wrote in message news:mdsp1b$a4$1@jefelex.eternal-september.org... > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:mdrga8$sb1$4@speranza.aioe.org... >> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:42:35 -0700, John F wrote: >> >>> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put >>> it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server - >>> even if the cloud server is free, it costs you in terms of dealing with >>> the advertizing and spyware etc delivered with all the public services >>> nowadays >> >> I'm involved with a not-for-profit which uses Dropbox reasonably heavily. >> Data is backed-up automatically to DB, and then the DB account accessed >> by several people around the country and, on occasion, internationally. >> >> I see no ads, because I run adblockers on all my machines. I'm sure >> others do likewise. >> >> So what does it "cost" the organisation? > > It doesn't cost you anything - I use the same adblockers on my web browser > (at home) - I very rarely see any advertizing at all, but it's the > principal of the thing - if you didn't have any tracker blockers attached > to your browser, they'd (advertizers) be having a heyday, and nothing > makes me more furious than having my privacy invaded by some machine that > thinks I want to see advertizments that I have absolutely no interest in > at all! If I want something, I go and buy it - I don't wait for some > advertizement to suggest I need it or whatever - I actually don't use the > web that much, more VPN and usenet - so sick of the commercializm, I > remember when we first started web surfing back in the early 90's and it > was so nice because it had no advertizments - now that is all it is, why > bother? Because it leaves all the other sources of information for dead convenience wise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 08:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55014cb2$0$64285$b1db1813$1367588f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #14016 |
On 11/03/2015 22:42, John F wrote: > Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in > for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples The disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. It doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. The disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails. You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose the data. Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 09:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20150312091413.0d31eda3@debian> |
| In reply to | #14023 |
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:22:13 +0000 "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > On 11/03/2015 22:42, John F wrote: > > > Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in > > for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server > > As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. > > The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. > The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples > The disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for > paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. > It doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. > The disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails. > You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose the data. > > Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea? > What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't think anyone would be considering data security! Also, conversely, if your data is stored remotely. What if the country the server is in has change of government, a revolution, a nuclear attack, a tsunami, earthquake, meteor strike, blah blah blah. -- W J G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 09:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cmd57cFsaumU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14025 |
On 2015-03-12, Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:22:13 +0000
> "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 11/03/2015 22:42, John F wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in
>> > for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server
>>
>> As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup.
>>
>> The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof.
>> The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples
>> The disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for
>> paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe.
>> It doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe.
>> The disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails.
>> You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose the data.
>>
>> Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea?
>>
> What a load of twaddle.
If you're posting from elsewhere than uk.d-i-y, you might like to know that
dennis is a well known idiot. We keep him about so we can laugh at him and poke
him with sticks. Virtually everything he posts is crap.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 71st day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude,
that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 09:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdrn1r$f0u$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #14025 |
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:14:13 +0000, Folderol wrote: >> > Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to >> > put it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud >> > server >> As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. >> >> The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. >> The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples The >> disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for >> paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. >> It doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. >> The disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk >> fails. You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and >> lose the data. >> >> Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea? > What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't think > anyone would be considering data security! Failure of a single Tb HDD is hardly "armageddon scenario".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdsgmd$qh4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14028 |
On 12/03/15 09:42, Adrian wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:14:13 +0000, Folderol wrote: > >>>> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to >>>> put it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud >>>> server > >>> As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. >>> >>> The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. >>> The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples The >>> disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for >>> paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. >>> It doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. >>> The disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk >>> fails. You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and >>> lose the data. >>> >>> Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea? > >> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't think >> anyone would be considering data security! > > Failure of a single Tb HDD is hardly "armageddon scenario". > On my server is routine - swap it out and then copy everything to it from the mirror... -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdshs2$266$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #14036 |
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:59:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to >>>>> put it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud >>>>> server >>>> As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. >>>> >>>> The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. >>>> The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples The >>>> disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for >>>> paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. It >>>> doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. The >>>> disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails. >>>> You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose >>>> the data. >>>> >>>> Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea? >>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >>> think anyone would be considering data security! >> Failure of a single Tb HDD is hardly "armageddon scenario". > On my server is routine - swap it out and then copy everything to it > from the mirror... And there was me, thinking that a single drive shoved into a safe - rather than hotswap chassis with raid arrays - was being discussed... BTW, I hope you've got redundant raid controllers. Because I've dealt with the aftermath of a controller failing during an array rebuild after a drive swap*... * Telling us that a drive had failed was, it seemed, the only advance symptom of the controller's impending failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 12:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QvidnfUhzs4hTJzInZ2dnUU7-cednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #14037 |
At Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:20:02 +0000 (UTC) Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:59:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> >>>>> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to
> >>>>> put it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud
> >>>>> server
>
> >>>> As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup.
> >>>>
> >>>> The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof.
> >>>> The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples The
> >>>> disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for
> >>>> paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. It
> >>>> doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. The
> >>>> disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails.
> >>>> You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose
> >>>> the data.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea?
>
> >>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't
> >>> think anyone would be considering data security!
>
> >> Failure of a single Tb HDD is hardly "armageddon scenario".
>
> > On my server is routine - swap it out and then copy everything to it
> > from the mirror...
>
> And there was me, thinking that a single drive shoved into a safe -
> rather than hotswap chassis with raid arrays - was being discussed...
>
> BTW, I hope you've got redundant raid controllers. Because I've dealt
> with the aftermath of a controller failing during an array rebuild after
> a drive swap*...
That is the *beauty* of (Linux) *software* RAID. Replacement (compatible!)
RAID controller: quick trip to BestBuy/Fryes or an overnight shipment from
NewEgg... One can swap motherboards, power supplies, chassis, etc. easily and
cheaply.
>
> * Telling us that a drive had failed was, it seemed, the only advance
> symptom of the controller's impending failure.
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdsnuo$9bo$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14037 |
On 12/03/15 17:20, Adrian wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:59:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>>>>> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to >>>>>> put it in for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud >>>>>> server > >>>>> As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. >>>>> >>>>> The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. >>>>> The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples The >>>>> disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for >>>>> paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. It >>>>> doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. The >>>>> disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails. >>>>> You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose >>>>> the data. >>>>> >>>>> Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea? > >>>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >>>> think anyone would be considering data security! > >>> Failure of a single Tb HDD is hardly "armageddon scenario". > >> On my server is routine - swap it out and then copy everything to it >> from the mirror... > > And there was me, thinking that a single drive shoved into a safe - > rather than hotswap chassis with raid arrays - was being discussed... > > BTW, I hope you've got redundant raid controllers. Because I've dealt > with the aftermath of a controller failing during an array rebuild after > a drive swap*... > i dont use raid. i mirror every night, that way accidental deletes have a recovery window...;-) > * Telling us that a drive had failed was, it seemed, the only advance > symptom of the controller's impending failure. > -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 10:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ad58tb-5m7.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #14025 |
On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:22:13 +0000 > "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >> On 11/03/2015 22:42, John F wrote: >> >>> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in >>> for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server >> >> As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. >> >> The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. >> The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples >> The disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for >> paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. >> It doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. >> The disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails. >> You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose the data. >> >> Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea? >> > What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't think anyone > would be considering data security! They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the 18th century and work it all out the hard way...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdsl7o11v4h@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #14031 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] On 2015-03-12, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: > >> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >> think anyone would be considering data security! > > They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be > used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the > 18th century and work it all out the hard way... Even then, the process will be long and difficult. And it depends on the stored knowledge being readable by whatever hardware remains! How many people can read a 9-track tape these days? Recommended reading: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-13 07:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <cmeab3F7s07U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14040 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:mdsl7o11v4h@news3.newsguy.com... > On 2015-03-12, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > >> On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: >> >>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >>> think anyone would be considering data security! >> >> They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be >> used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the >> 18th century and work it all out the hard way... > > Even then, the process will be long and difficult. I've never been convinced about that. And it depends on the > stored knowledge being readable by whatever hardware remains! How many > people can read a 9-track tape these days? You don’t see the same problem with hard drives as the backup media. > Recommended reading: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. Just someone's scenario which isn't very plausible at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web