I agree. I have all my key stuff under a directory that get diff replicated every 2 hours to a server. The server then diff replicates to a USB drive (when it's on).
It's over kill, but the drive on the server was a spare and the USB drive is just handy for transport.
This way I get performance (my local drives are fast SCSI) and the data being copied every 2 hours means there's never a large transaction. I get reliability (3 seperate boxes with 3 seperate drives). I get low cost (other than the USB everything else was a spare part or something I would have bought anyway).
Finally, my server once a month does a massive ZIP of everything (result is about 4 gigs) so I can still back it up to a DVD if there is something really important going on (year end, tax time, etc..).
I'm not suggesting this as a plan, but I am suggesting it's worth being clever and using stuff you have laying about anyway.
Not really. Computers are largely commodity items despite the hype about OS/vendor. So are the folks who make them work. Granted, some folks are going to be better than others but generally you look for a happy medium between cost and benefit (and the result is a commodity).
I've never met anyone who shows up and says the person I'm replacing did a great job. I've never met a tech person who shows up and says all the tech decisions made by a predecessor (or someone else for that matter) is right.
It's just human nature. What I find curious is that OS's attracts such zealot's. It's been this way since CPM vs DOS, Mac OS vs DOS/Windows and now it's Linux vs Windows. I'm sure it'll continue this way for some time to come.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't buy a computer to run an OS. I buy them to perform a task. It's the combination of availablity, initial & running cost and performance that determines my choice.
A Linux install can be done just as badly as a Windows install. It doesn't mean that Linux is bad...just the commodity I hired to do it.
If my laundry soap didn't do the job...I would choose another.
I've always marvelled at how people can be so committed to an OS (or the marketing of an OS). You just don't get this sort of thing happening with toasters or laundry soap.
At the end of the day, it's a computer and some software: a tool. Sometimes one tool will do a job better than the other and vice versa. And as with any tool a lot comes down to the user.
*nix folks like tweaking things and the result is often a more efficient and powerful solution, but for a specific task. Windows folks like getting things done and just want it done profitably. Apple folks are just Windows folks who like to look good while they're doing there thing(flame on!;->)
Seriously though, we have many types of hammers in this world for a reason: each is suited to a specific (or a general) task. We'll have many OS's/CPU types/Computer Brands,etc... for a long time because each will be suited to a task.
I'm running both and I'm happy with both for the things they are good at.
Slashdot Mirror
It's over kill, but the drive on the server was a spare and the USB drive is just handy for transport.
This way I get performance (my local drives are fast SCSI) and the data being copied every 2 hours means there's never a large transaction. I get reliability (3 seperate boxes with 3 seperate drives). I get low cost (other than the USB everything else was a spare part or something I would have bought anyway).
Finally, my server once a month does a massive ZIP of everything (result is about 4 gigs) so I can still back it up to a DVD if there is something really important going on (year end, tax time, etc..).
I'm not suggesting this as a plan, but I am suggesting it's worth being clever and using stuff you have laying about anyway.
Not really. Computers are largely commodity items despite the hype about OS/vendor. So are the folks who make them work. Granted, some folks are going to be better than others but generally you look for a happy medium between cost and benefit (and the result is a commodity). I've never met anyone who shows up and says the person I'm replacing did a great job. I've never met a tech person who shows up and says all the tech decisions made by a predecessor (or someone else for that matter) is right. It's just human nature. What I find curious is that OS's attracts such zealot's. It's been this way since CPM vs DOS, Mac OS vs DOS/Windows and now it's Linux vs Windows. I'm sure it'll continue this way for some time to come. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't buy a computer to run an OS. I buy them to perform a task. It's the combination of availablity, initial & running cost and performance that determines my choice. A Linux install can be done just as badly as a Windows install. It doesn't mean that Linux is bad...just the commodity I hired to do it. If my laundry soap didn't do the job...I would choose another.
At the end of the day, it's a computer and some software: a tool. Sometimes one tool will do a job better than the other and vice versa. And as with any tool a lot comes down to the user.
*nix folks like tweaking things and the result is often a more efficient and powerful solution, but for a specific task. Windows folks like getting things done and just want it done profitably. Apple folks are just Windows folks who like to look good while they're doing there thing(flame on! ;->)
Seriously though, we have many types of hammers in this world for a reason: each is suited to a specific (or a general) task. We'll have many OS's/CPU types/Computer Brands,etc... for a long time because each will be suited to a task.
I'm running both and I'm happy with both for the things they are good at.