[Discuss] Idiot simple backup process.

[pw]

Andrew Burgess wrote:
> well I tried sbackup but it's a deb or source. I can't get the damn 
> thing working from source I tried to yum install it but it doesn't 
> recognize the software and I tried to apt-get and I run into the same 
> problem. I tried to download the package as an rmp but the total 
> additional rpm's I would have to install is slightly over 40 other 
> packages. Christ on a crutch! I am beginning to understand why people 
> are hesitant to get involved with Linux. It over complicates something 
> that should be as simple as falling out of bed. I need a simple backup 
> solution that had a graphical interface that can be used by any brain 
> damage inflicted office worker. Yes I could continue sucking cash out of 
> a company by doing the simple process for them but neither they or I 
> want to do that. especially if I suddenly get schmucked by a car and am 
> no more. Maybe I'm using the wrong source servers for yum or apt-get. 
> any ideas?
> Please?
> Thanks.
> (PS: Yes, I'm tired and cranky)
> 


Personally, if I wanted a solution that does everything,
I'd go for Scott Petersen's suggestion of bacula.

It works across platforms.

There really is no magic bullet for making backups that
is completely failsafe if unskilled end users want to be *involved*
in the process. Your office staff need to decide whether they want
a GOOD backup system or just something that any old schmoe can
understand. Just because they don't understand how it works
doesn't mean it's not better than XCOPY under DOS. ;)

Even under MS windows there are backups, and then there are 
!!!!*backups*!!!.
It sounds like the office staff wouldn't understand those either. The
really good ones in Windows are just as complex.

*Reliable* backups are complex because the systems that IT staff are 
backing up are usually complex. The "Keep It Silly Simple" rule depends
on the level of understanding required to do the job. The backup system
should be understandable to the person making backups. By the same token
the person making backups should have a complete understanding of what
is happening in that process. Otherwise it won't matter how good
the system is, user error will mess it up sooner or later and the
backups will be useless.

All systems need to be monitored intermittently. The operator
needs to have the technical understanding to do that.

In the long run, your client will get exactly what they pay for.
That goes both ways, good and bad. They should just PAY YOU
to do their backups with whatever system YOU understand.


Peter