A solution using rsync + a smart trick with hardlinks to provide changes history.
He also uses loopback filesystems to save the backup on windows servers keeping file permissions/ownership. Definetely worth taking a look:
this sounds like a very good solution. Okay, it would still be a pain over a slow connection if you need to restore, but assuming your provider's backup can be used as a starting point, it should be fine;)
I work at a reasonably big email provider (about 5 million emails a day).
Lately we have noticed a rise on average used space. The reason is that there is a new boy in town: Peer2Mail is one (amongst many) programs that allows users to share (huge) files from free email accounts.
These users gather in forums dedicated to sharing the info of email accounts + passwords + files on them. They sometimes have a caste system, where some are uploaders, others are "account creators", etc. I have seen posts of young boys who created 400 e-mail accounts in 2 days.
Once the accounts are created, they share their numbers and passwords with the uploaders. They go to a gmail account, set half a dozen of other accounts to receive forwarded copies of everything that reaches it, and voila! instant multiple copies of gamez, pr0n and everything you can imagine is shared with the world through a forum.
The problem is, what is the boundary between the mail provider's responsibility of what is being stored there, and the right of the users, who are getting the email service for free, to severely cripple the services, when 20GB of mail is delivered to 30 e-mail accounts to be checked for viruses, parsed to verify if it isn't spam, etc?
Peer2Mail is already there, the question now is how we must deal with it.
...maybe I should explain that "tabbed browsing" is not the ability in lynx to tab between hyperlinks but rather a feature in something called a Graphical User Interface based browser that allows for multiple webpages...
Actually, you can have tabbed browsing on console as well. Check out elinks if you doubt me:)
One point everybody seems to be missing is that, if Google wants to, they can add Yahoo, AOL, ICQ, MSN compatibility through their Jabber server. Jabber servers can have modules installed on them so that the user can log to multiple other networks through that server. So, you could migrate and wait for your friends once you are already there.
By doing this, and having a strong feature set, they will most likely conquer users in the long run. I love google, I love gmail, and, if they come up with a cross-platform, server-side stored history/contacts, and multiple-IM 'proxying' Jabber server, I will be the first to migrate.
One more thing though: today, everybody (but me, it seems) wants audio chat and webcam. If they don't have a solution for that, don't even bother. That is a major advantage of MSN over ICQ today. People just point-and-click, and it is there. I don't like that, but, well, this is how it works...
Releasing the info to exploit the code was irresponsible, that's for sure.
The main problem is, it's Microsoft! It's not my intention to call upon the virtues of Linux, for it's not perfect as well. The point is, being Microsoft, and therefore, closed-source, there's no reason to make the bug public. If it was some open-source project, then one could argue that the public announcement would generate a bugfix more quickly, which is not the case.
Anyway, another thing arises amidst this discussion: Microsoft's latest EULA's self-proclaimed rights to automatic ally patch your computer. Sys admins and serious users will be updating their systems as soon as the patch comes out. The end user won't even know that the bug exists, until his accounting spreadsheets, school work, or personal MP3 collection gets lost with a fried computer. In these cases, automatic update IS an interesting thing. I don't wish to allow it on my computer, but some users might want that. Just think on the chaos if such a bug was discovered and associated with some IIS or Apache exploit, so that millions of homepages were infected with it? gee... Code Red would be a matter of minor headache...
Slashdot Mirror
And you want us to believe that you know what you're talking about? in slashdot? really?
> *my brother found out about this the hard way
Your *wink* brother *wink wink*
yeah, right :)
From a site slashdotted on another post today:
;)
A solution using rsync + a smart trick with hardlinks to provide changes history.
He also uses loopback filesystems to save the backup on windows servers keeping file permissions/ownership. Definetely worth taking a look:
http://ttsiodras.googlepages.com/backup.html
this sounds like a very good solution. Okay, it would still be a pain over a slow connection if you need to restore, but assuming your provider's backup can be used as a starting point, it should be fine
I work at a reasonably big email provider (about 5 million emails a day).
Lately we have noticed a rise on average used space. The reason is that there is a new boy in town: Peer2Mail is one (amongst many) programs that allows users to share (huge) files from free email accounts.
These users gather in forums dedicated to sharing the info of email accounts + passwords + files on them. They sometimes have a caste system, where some are uploaders, others are "account creators", etc. I have seen posts of young boys who created 400 e-mail accounts in 2 days.
Once the accounts are created, they share their numbers and passwords with the uploaders. They go to a gmail account, set half a dozen of other accounts to receive forwarded copies of everything that reaches it, and voila! instant multiple copies of gamez, pr0n and everything you can imagine is shared with the world through a forum.
The problem is, what is the boundary between the mail provider's responsibility of what is being stored there, and the right of the users, who are getting the email service for free, to severely cripple the services, when 20GB of mail is delivered to 30 e-mail accounts to be checked for viruses, parsed to verify if it isn't spam, etc?
Peer2Mail is already there, the question now is how we must deal with it.
...maybe I should explain that "tabbed browsing" is not the ability in lynx to tab between hyperlinks but rather a feature in something called a Graphical User Interface based browser that allows for multiple webpages...
:)
Actually, you can have tabbed browsing on console as well. Check out elinks if you doubt me
apt-get install elinks, and you are done!
One point everybody seems to be missing is that, if Google wants to, they can add Yahoo, AOL, ICQ, MSN compatibility through their Jabber server. Jabber servers can have modules installed on them so that the user can log to multiple other networks through that server. So, you could migrate and wait for your friends once you are already there.
By doing this, and having a strong feature set, they will most likely conquer users in the long run. I love google, I love gmail, and, if they come up with a cross-platform, server-side stored history/contacts, and multiple-IM 'proxying' Jabber server, I will be the first to migrate.
One more thing though: today, everybody (but me, it seems) wants audio chat and webcam. If they don't have a solution for that, don't even bother. That is a major advantage of MSN over ICQ today. People just point-and-click, and it is there. I don't like that, but, well, this is how it works...
Well, I am sure I am not the only one who would like to see a howto on this :)
Are you kidding? Of course his soul's IP belongs to SCO!!!
I wonder.... what if the server gets slashdotted? Poor Taco, trying to handle 23745732 users concurrently speaking....
Send your CDs to www.nomoreaolcds.com. They will have a good use for them :)
Releasing the info to exploit the code was irresponsible, that's for sure.
The main problem is, it's Microsoft! It's not my intention to call upon the virtues of Linux, for it's not perfect as well. The point is, being Microsoft, and therefore, closed-source, there's no reason to make the bug public. If it was some open-source project, then one could argue that the public announcement would generate a bugfix more quickly, which is not the case.
Anyway, another thing arises amidst this discussion: Microsoft's latest EULA's self-proclaimed rights to automatic ally patch your computer. Sys admins and serious users will be updating their systems as soon as the patch comes out. The end user won't even know that the bug exists, until his accounting spreadsheets, school work, or personal MP3 collection gets lost with a fried computer. In these cases, automatic update IS an interesting thing. I don't wish to allow it on my computer, but some users might want that. Just think on the chaos if such a bug was discovered and associated with some IIS or Apache exploit, so that millions of homepages were infected with it? gee... Code Red would be a matter of minor headache...