• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Speeding up hard drives?

A

Alias

Flightless Bird
On 06/11/2010 01:08 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:41:36 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> John B. slocomb wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:12:58 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B. slocomb wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias
>>>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to pick at you
>>>>
>>>> Your favorite hobby.
>>>>
>>>>> but why not just install another internal drive?
>>>>
>>>> Are you serious?
>>>
>>> How so? It isn't rocket science, just four screws.
>>>>
>>>>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are
>>>>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA
>>>> drives in external enclosures as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>> certainly run slowly.
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>
>
> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
Backing up to external media is computing 101.

--
Alias
 
C

Canuck57

Flightless Bird
On 10/06/2010 6:12 AM, Alias wrote:
> John B. slocomb wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard
>>>>>>> drive
>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000
>>>>>>> RPM or
>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.
>>
>>
>> Not to pick at you
>
> Your favorite hobby.
>
>> but why not just install another internal drive?
>
> Are you serious?
>
>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are
>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
> I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA
> drives in external enclosures as well.

I think he was serious. But seriously stupid to rely on two drives in
the same boxen/OS. But shows how limited many a MS pundits think.

For our other readers as Alias already knows this.

Backing up to Linux device has the following advantages.

1) Absolutely faster. Given the same hardware and network interfaces,
disk and network copy on Linux is vastly faster and more reliable than
MS- Windows. The largest CIFS servers in the world are Linux/SAMBA and
can take loads MS Windows can't handle in their dreams. Vista to Samba
is faster than Vista to Vista, go figure.

2) Normally you would leave the maps and shares unconnected so if a
virus/tojan/worm messes up your MS Windows, it isn't likely going to get
by Samba to do in the Linux copy.

3) Far supperior to 2 disks in one OS because if the OS screws up, it
can and often does take out both drives when it scrambles itself good.
Having a different OS for the destination, not an issue.

4) If MS Windows has licensing issues, or some weekly patch blows it up,
your Linux bex is quite safe from Uncle Ballmer.
--
Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/11/2010 5:45 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 6:12 AM, Alias wrote:
>> John B. slocomb wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
>>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard
>>>>>>>> drive
>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000
>>>>>>>> RPM or
>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files
>>>>>>> disk
>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to
>>>>>> run
>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to pick at you
>>
>> Your favorite hobby.
>>
>>> but why not just install another internal drive?
>>
>> Are you serious?
>>
>>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are
>>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA
>> drives in external enclosures as well.
>
> I think he was serious. But seriously stupid to rely on two drives in
> the same boxen/OS. But shows how limited many a MS pundits think.
>
> For our other readers as Alias already knows this.
>
> Backing up to Linux device has the following advantages.
>
> 1) Absolutely faster. Given the same hardware and network interfaces,
> disk and network copy on Linux is vastly faster and more reliable than
> MS- Windows. The largest CIFS servers in the world are Linux/SAMBA and
> can take loads MS Windows can't handle in their dreams. Vista to Samba
> is faster than Vista to Vista, go figure.
>
> 2) Normally you would leave the maps and shares unconnected so if a
> virus/tojan/worm messes up your MS Windows, it isn't likely going to get
> by Samba to do in the Linux copy.
>
> 3) Far supperior to 2 disks in one OS because if the OS screws up, it
> can and often does take out both drives when it scrambles itself good.
> Having a different OS for the destination, not an issue.
>
> 4) If MS Windows has licensing issues, or some weekly patch blows it up,
> your Linux bex is quite safe from Uncle Ballmer.

You are seriously desperate and obviously, mentally deranged!...Hahahah!
 
J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:


>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>
>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>
>>
>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>Backing up to external media is computing 101.

I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
serviceable.

And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
site.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
C

Canuck57

Flightless Bird
On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>
> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
> serviceable.
>
> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
> site.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
works great and is secure.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/11/2010 6:20 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
> On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in
>>>>> as a
>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>
>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>>
>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
>> serviceable.
>>
>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
>> site.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
> Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.
>
> Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
> works great and is secure.
>
What a great way to waste your buddy's time.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>
> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
> computer and all the internal drives would go south.

I can think of three:

1. Malware
2. Your computer is stolen.
3. A fire or, if you live in such a place, an earthquake.

> I had a power
> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
> serviceable.

I have had the same experience but I felt I was lucky.

>
> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
> site.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I don't think that's all that necessary. I have been updated my way now
for a decade and I've never lost a byte. I do, however, keep one of my
hard drives off site.

--
Alias
 
J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>
>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>>
>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
>> serviceable.
>>
>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
>> site.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.
>
>Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
>works great and is secure.

I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra
drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The
back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and
directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a
virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:04:47 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>John B. slocomb wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>
>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>>
>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.
>
>I can think of three:
>
>1. Malware
>2. Your computer is stolen.
>3. A fire or, if you live in such a place, an earthquake.
>
Since my "desktop" is in the house I'm not too worried about someone
stealing it. If they do I undoubtedly will have more to worry about
then just the computer. The laptops, I make a point of not keeping any
data on them that I would worry about losing and never back them up.
If I lose one then my major complaint is that I've got to buy a new
computer.

Malware... I hear you talking but frankly I have never had any
problems with that. 15 or so years ago I got a Trojan from a bootleg
copied disk and I occasionally have seen cookies the report back to
somewhere else but the really damaging virus I read about I have never
seen. I have used a firewall for ever and ever and generally a scanner
frequently. The router/modem has a rudimentary firewall and I am
fairly cautious what I download or what I open on line.

>> I had a power
>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
>> serviceable.
>
>I have had the same experience but I felt I was lucky.
>
>>
>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
>> site.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>I don't think that's all that necessary. I have been updated my way now
>for a decade and I've never lost a byte. I do, however, keep one of my
>hard drives off site.

Well, you are the one that mentioned fire and flood :)

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:04:47 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> John B. slocomb wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>>>
>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.
>>
>> I can think of three:
>>
>> 1. Malware
>> 2. Your computer is stolen.
>> 3. A fire or, if you live in such a place, an earthquake.
>>
> Since my "desktop" is in the house I'm not too worried about someone
> stealing it. If they do I undoubtedly will have more to worry about
> then just the computer.

You got that right.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57<Canuck57@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>>>
>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
>>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
>>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
>>> serviceable.
>>>
>>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
>>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
>>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
>>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
>>> site.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.
>>
>> Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
>> works great and is secure.
>
> I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra
> drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The
> back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and
> directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a
> virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, but when it's mounted and doing the back up trip ... wide open.

--
Alias
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:46:50 +0700, John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>>>
>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
>>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
>>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
>>> serviceable.
>>>
>>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
>>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
>>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
>>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
>>> site.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>>Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.
>>
>>Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
>>works great and is secure.
>
> I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra
> drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The
> back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and
> directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a
> virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I use a backup program that writes to an unmounted drive. This is in
Windows 7, BTW.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
 
S

Schweik

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:18:44 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-me@other.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:46:50 +0700, John B. slocomb wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>>>>
>>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
>>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
>>>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
>>>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
>>>> serviceable.
>>>>
>>>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
>>>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
>>>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
>>>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
>>>> site.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>
>>>Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.
>>>
>>>Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
>>>works great and is secure.
>>
>> I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra
>> drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The
>> back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and
>> directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a
>> virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>I use a backup program that writes to an unmounted drive. This is in
>Windows 7, BTW.


Question: How do you know it is unmounted? I thought Windows
automatically mounted every FAT or HPFS system that it could see?

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)
 
K

Kazumé

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:12:15 +0700, John B. Slocomb
<johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:


<SNIP>
>
>
>Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version
>of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the
>latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the
>free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to
>see whether it works or not.

Sorry to butt into your little spat, but, this ludicrous statement
absolutely describes Microsoft's operating systems to a 'T': "stuff
that the company have released to see whether it works or not".

I've had at least eight systems in my home running MS O/S'es for the
past fifteen years (was a reseller). I have used Linux & Ubuntu on
older computers but mainly for experimentation purposes only.

The only time I ever loaded a system with an MS O/S that was not at
least a year and a half old was Win95, in August of 1995, which was a
giant piece of shit until SP2 - same goes for Win98 & XP. I passed
completely on MILLENIUM & VISTA, the two biggest pieces of shit
operating systems ever produced by human brains, gigantic turds that
would have destroyed the reputation of any other company on the face
of the Earth, except of course for a company that has a solid
government/lemming supported monopoly.

Anyway, I use Microshaft operating systems NOT because they are the
best, not because they run flawlessly, not because they copy files
fastest or burn CD's well, not because they have the best security
features, not because of their bug free operation, not because of
their 'reasonable' prices, not because of the speed, but because
Microshaft basically is the only show in town.

I hate Microshit and Bill Gates for eliminating competition in the
operating system arena and for being able to drop humongous TURDS on
their customers without even so much as a whimper of a complaint.

BTW, Microshaft describes Bill Gate's penis, I am a total fucktard, a
liar, a stupid cunt, I don't know squat and I will fuck off so attack
me personally if you dare, I don't care.

Kaz


>>>
>>
>>All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as
>>you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures
>>you wouldn't know squat.
>>
>Of course I have installed Ubuntu - how else would I know that it is
>the newbee's wet dream?
>
>
>>>
>>> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1
>>
>>It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.
>
>True, but can they run any of the popular games? Try booting up Spore
>or My Sims, two of my grand kids favorites.
>
>>
>>>
>>> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6
>>> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!
>>
>>Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.
>>>
>>> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.
>>>
>>> John B. Slocomb
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>>Fuck off, kid.
>
>
>You see, you aren't even able to defend your own statements - you
>can't say that in Ubuntu click on this and that to give =you a up to
>date report of speed of transferring files. You can't qualify any of
>your assertions, you just stand in the school yard shouting "yo mama
>wears army boots!"
>
>John B. Slocomb
>(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
"Kazumé" <Oocyte@fallopian.net> wrote in message
news:hpp916h8gkj6ihfndm04e48ra0beq1e5qk@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:12:15 +0700, John B. Slocomb
> <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>>
>>
>>Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version
>>of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the
>>latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the
>>free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to
>>see whether it works or not.
>
> Sorry to butt into your little spat, but, this ludicrous statement
> absolutely describes Microsoft's operating systems to a 'T': "stuff
> that the company have released to see whether it works or not".
>

Then you've never run linux.
Microsoft is a breeze compared to any distro out there, period.
I've run every f-ing linux you can think of, even the "stable" paid for
ones.
Not that ubuntu, mint, nonsense ... but actual distros

> I've had at least eight systems in my home running MS O/S'es for the
> past fifteen years (was a reseller). I have used Linux & Ubuntu on
> older computers but mainly for experimentation purposes only.
>

If you tried ubuntu...then linux isn't even close to what you're running.
No actual linux distros include all that non-free crap so readily.


> The only time I ever loaded a system with an MS O/S that was not at
> least a year and a half old was Win95, in August of 1995, which was a
> giant piece of shit until SP2 - same goes for Win98 & XP. I passed
> completely on MILLENIUM & VISTA, the two biggest pieces of shit
> operating systems ever produced by human brains, gigantic turds that
> would have destroyed the reputation of any other company on the face
> of the Earth, except of course for a company that has a solid
> government/lemming supported monopoly.
>

You passed on Vista, yet proclaim it a turd.
Nutball.
Stop reading the blogs of dumbasses, you'll be OK.

> Anyway, I use Microshaft operating systems NOT because they are the
> best, not because they run flawlessly, not because they copy files
> fastest or burn CD's well, not because they have the best security
> features, not because of their bug free operation, not because of
> their 'reasonable' prices, not because of the speed, but because
> Microshaft basically is the only show in town.
>

BooHoo...poor you, too stupid to find alternatives.
Skilled you are not.
Even dumbass iDumbasses can find another OS.

> I hate Microshit and Bill Gates for eliminating competition in the
> operating system arena and for being able to drop humongous TURDS on
> their customers without even so much as a whimper of a complaint.
>

You hate people you've never met?
That's psychotic.
And you hate a company that employs quite a few people.
I'm sure whatever you do is quite valuable... to you.

> BTW, Microshaft describes Bill Gate's penis, I am a total fucktard, a
> liar, a stupid cunt, I don't know squat and I will fuck off so attack
> me personally if you dare, I don't care.
>

Who need dare.
You said nothing.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
On 06/14/2010 12:17 AM, Death wrote:
>
> "Kazumé" <Oocyte@fallopian.net> wrote in message
> news:hpp916h8gkj6ihfndm04e48ra0beq1e5qk@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:12:15 +0700, John B. Slocomb
>> <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version
>>> of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the
>>> latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the
>>> free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to
>>> see whether it works or not.
>>
>> Sorry to butt into your little spat, but, this ludicrous statement
>> absolutely describes Microsoft's operating systems to a 'T': "stuff
>> that the company have released to see whether it works or not".
>>
>
> Then you've never run linux.

Idiot.

> Microsoft is a breeze compared to any distro out there, period.

A lie.

> I've run every f-ing linux you can think of, even the "stable" paid for
> ones.

Yeah, but you're a moron.

> Not that ubuntu, mint, nonsense ... but actual distros

Ubuntu and Mint are actual distros.

>
>> I've had at least eight systems in my home running MS O/S'es for the
>> past fifteen years (was a reseller). I have used Linux & Ubuntu on
>> older computers but mainly for experimentation purposes only.
>>
>
> If you tried ubuntu...then linux isn't even close to what you're running.
> No actual linux distros include all that non-free crap so readily.

Nothing wrong with the non free stuff; it works just fine.

>
>
>> The only time I ever loaded a system with an MS O/S that was not at
>> least a year and a half old was Win95, in August of 1995, which was a
>> giant piece of shit until SP2 - same goes for Win98 & XP. I passed
>> completely on MILLENIUM & VISTA, the two biggest pieces of shit
>> operating systems ever produced by human brains, gigantic turds that
>> would have destroyed the reputation of any other company on the face
>> of the Earth, except of course for a company that has a solid
>> government/lemming supported monopoly.
>>
>
> You passed on Vista, yet proclaim it a turd.

He isn't the only one. One doesn't have to jump off the Empire State
Bldg. to know that it isn't a good idea.

> Nutball.
> Stop reading the blogs of dumbasses, you'll be OK.

Even your hero, Steve Monkey Man Ballmer, says Vista is a turd.

>
>> Anyway, I use Microshaft operating systems NOT because they are the
>> best, not because they run flawlessly, not because they copy files
>> fastest or burn CD's well, not because they have the best security
>> features, not because of their bug free operation, not because of
>> their 'reasonable' prices, not because of the speed, but because
>> Microshaft basically is the only show in town.
>>
>
> BooHoo...poor you, too stupid to find alternatives.
> Skilled you are not.
> Even dumbass iDumbasses can find another OS.

Yet you stick with Windows.

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726

And one of the worst email/newsreader you can download from your heroes
at Microsoft.


>
>> I hate Microshit and Bill Gates for eliminating competition in the
>> operating system arena and for being able to drop humongous TURDS on
>> their customers without even so much as a whimper of a complaint.
>>
>
> You hate people you've never met?
> That's psychotic.
> And you hate a company that employs quite a few people.
> I'm sure whatever you do is quite valuable... to you.

You misread again. He hates what they do, dumb fuck.

>
>> BTW, Microshaft describes Bill Gate's penis, I am a total fucktard, a
>> liar, a stupid cunt, I don't know squat and I will fuck off so attack
>> me personally if you dare, I don't care.
>>
>
> Who need dare.
> You said nothing.

Projecting again, eh?


--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/14/2010 8:34 AM, Alias wrote:
> On 06/14/2010 12:17 AM, Death wrote:
>>
>> "Kazumé" <Oocyte@fallopian.net> wrote in message
>> news:hpp916h8gkj6ihfndm04e48ra0beq1e5qk@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:12:15 +0700, John B. Slocomb
>>> <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version
>>>> of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the
>>>> latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the
>>>> free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to
>>>> see whether it works or not.
>>>
>>> Sorry to butt into your little spat, but, this ludicrous statement
>>> absolutely describes Microsoft's operating systems to a 'T': "stuff
>>> that the company have released to see whether it works or not".
>>>
>>
>> Then you've never run linux.
>
> Idiot.
>
>> Microsoft is a breeze compared to any distro out there, period.
>
> A lie.
>
>> I've run every f-ing linux you can think of, even the "stable" paid for
>> ones.
>
> Yeah, but you're a moron.
>
>> Not that ubuntu, mint, nonsense ... but actual distros
>
> Ubuntu and Mint are actual distros.
>
>>
>>> I've had at least eight systems in my home running MS O/S'es for the
>>> past fifteen years (was a reseller). I have used Linux & Ubuntu on
>>> older computers but mainly for experimentation purposes only.
>>>
>>
>> If you tried ubuntu...then linux isn't even close to what you're running.
>> No actual linux distros include all that non-free crap so readily.
>
> Nothing wrong with the non free stuff; it works just fine.
>
>>
>>
>>> The only time I ever loaded a system with an MS O/S that was not at
>>> least a year and a half old was Win95, in August of 1995, which was a
>>> giant piece of shit until SP2 - same goes for Win98 & XP. I passed
>>> completely on MILLENIUM & VISTA, the two biggest pieces of shit
>>> operating systems ever produced by human brains, gigantic turds that
>>> would have destroyed the reputation of any other company on the face
>>> of the Earth, except of course for a company that has a solid
>>> government/lemming supported monopoly.
>>>
>>
>> You passed on Vista, yet proclaim it a turd.
>
> He isn't the only one. One doesn't have to jump off the Empire State
> Bldg. to know that it isn't a good idea.
>
>> Nutball.
>> Stop reading the blogs of dumbasses, you'll be OK.
>
> Even your hero, Steve Monkey Man Ballmer, says Vista is a turd.
>
>>
>>> Anyway, I use Microshaft operating systems NOT because they are the
>>> best, not because they run flawlessly, not because they copy files
>>> fastest or burn CD's well, not because they have the best security
>>> features, not because of their bug free operation, not because of
>>> their 'reasonable' prices, not because of the speed, but because
>>> Microshaft basically is the only show in town.
>>>
>>
>> BooHoo...poor you, too stupid to find alternatives.
>> Skilled you are not.
>> Even dumbass iDumbasses can find another OS.
>
> Yet you stick with Windows.
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
>
> And one of the worst email/newsreader you can download from your heroes
> at Microsoft.
>
>
>>
>>> I hate Microshit and Bill Gates for eliminating competition in the
>>> operating system arena and for being able to drop humongous TURDS on
>>> their customers without even so much as a whimper of a complaint.
>>>
>>
>> You hate people you've never met?
>> That's psychotic.
>> And you hate a company that employs quite a few people.
>> I'm sure whatever you do is quite valuable... to you.
>
> You misread again. He hates what they do, dumb fuck.
>
>>
>>> BTW, Microshaft describes Bill Gate's penis, I am a total fucktard, a
>>> liar, a stupid cunt, I don't know squat and I will fuck off so attack
>>> me personally if you dare, I don't care.
>>>
>>
>> Who need dare.
>> You said nothing.
>
> Projecting again, eh?
>
>
You are, aren't you.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:44:20 +0700, Schweik wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:18:44 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
> <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:46:50 +0700, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias
>>>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
>>>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
>>>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
>>>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
>>>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
>>>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
>>>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
>>>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
>>>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
>>>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
>>>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
>>>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
>>>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
>>>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
>>>>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
>>>>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
>>>>> serviceable.
>>>>>
>>>>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
>>>>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
>>>>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
>>>>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>>Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.
>>>>
>>>>Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
>>>>works great and is secure.
>>>
>>> I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra
>>> drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The
>>> back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and
>>> directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a
>>> virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>>I use a backup program that writes to an unmounted drive. This is in
>>Windows 7, BTW.
>
>
> Question: How do you know it is unmounted? I thought Windows
> automatically mounted every FAT or HPFS system that it could see?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Schweik
> (goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

Explorer doesn't see the drive when I plug it in. It doesn't have a drive
letter and it isn't associated with a folder. Both of these are still true
while the backup program is running.

I did this is by choice, in Disk management...

In fact, I have backed up successfully to unmounted drives using two
different backup programs, Macrium Reflect and Casper.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
 
K

Kazumé

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:17:57 -0400, "Death" <death@rottingcorpses.x-x>
wrote:

>
>"Kazumé" <Oocyte@fallopian.net> wrote in message
>news:hpp916h8gkj6ihfndm04e48ra0beq1e5qk@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:12:15 +0700, John B. Slocomb
>> <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version
>>>of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the
>>>latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the
>>>free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to
>>>see whether it works or not.
>>
>> Sorry to butt into your little spat, but, this ludicrous statement
>> absolutely describes Microsoft's operating systems to a 'T': "stuff
>> that the company have released to see whether it works or not".
>>
>
>Then you've never run linux.

Yes, I have and do, Redhat, but not at this moment. BTW, was certified
in UNIX in the 80's. Worked for SUN Micro. Played with Solaris. Helped
port a CAD/CAM package (Computervision CADDS) to Berkley UNIX and
Solaris.

>Microsoft is a breeze compared to any distro out there, period.
>I've run every f-ing linux you can think of, even the "stable" paid for
>ones.
>Not that ubuntu, mint, nonsense ... but actual distros
>
>> I've had at least eight systems in my home running MS O/S'es for the
>> past fifteen years (was a reseller). I have used Linux & Ubuntu on
>> older computers but mainly for experimentation purposes only.
>>
>
>If you tried ubuntu...then linux isn't even close to what you're running.
>No actual linux distros include all that non-free crap so readily.

I don't understand this. I took two Linux (Redhat) cert. classes for
fun a couple of years ago and then when I saw Ubuntu, its kernel, the
way it compiled, the command structure, man pages and I loved that vi
editor. Well, it at least looks similar, wouldn't you say???

>> The only time I ever loaded a system with an MS O/S that was not at
>> least a year and a half old was Win95, in August of 1995, which was a
>> giant piece of shit until SP2 - same goes for Win98 & XP. I passed
>> completely on MILLENIUM & VISTA, the two biggest pieces of shit
>> operating systems ever produced by human brains, gigantic turds that
>> would have destroyed the reputation of any other company on the face
>> of the Earth, except of course for a company that has a solid
>> government/lemming supported monopoly.
>>
>
>You passed on Vista, yet proclaim it a turd.

>Nutball.

Yes, I'm a 100% certified Nutball! By "passed", I meant that I did not
risk installing either OS on any of my own personal (or my wife's)
desktop systems. Sorry about the mix-up. However, many of my customers
were forced to purchase Vista preloaded on new laptops. I know this
because a number of them called me to see if I could take Vista off
and load XP. As for Millenium, Jeebiz Cripes! That turd made me so
much $$$! As a repair person, I loved it! If I were a customer of
Microshaft though, I would have never purchased another of their
products again.

>Stop reading the blogs of dumbasses, you'll be OK.

I'm 54-y.o. I've been working with computers for 33 years but I have
never read a single blog (I don't text or twitter either). I sometimes
research new hardware and/or software by Googling for opinions and
reviews but I only use that information to form my own opinions.

>
>> Anyway, I use Microshaft operating systems NOT because they are the
>> best, not because they run flawlessly, not because they copy files
>> fastest or burn CD's well, not because they have the best security
>> features, not because of their bug free operation, not because of
>> their 'reasonable' prices, not because of the speed, but because
>> Microshaft basically is the only show in town.

Hey, I'm here mainly to download porn and annoy people.

>BooHoo...poor you, too stupid to find alternatives.
>Skilled you are not.
>Even dumbass iDumbasses can find another OS.

Okay, lets see... alternatives... Linux... too cheap... complicated...
Hmmmmm how about MAC OS... nah, I hate proprietary hardware. Steve
Jobs is akin to any number of cult leaders and I don't like cults...
hmmmm ... Ubuntu?... not bad but I can't play many games with it e.g.
ZORK I, Colossal Cave, etc... hmmmm DOS! CP/M! DR-DOS!...nah, all to
texty... Google Chrome!!! Yeah, that's the ticket! Well, maybe not
yet, not due for release until later this year... DAMN!...Well, Mr.
Death, it seems you're right. I'm am a crying, stupid, completely
unskilled Dumbass. Can you please suggest a couple of VIABLE
alternatives for me?

1.

2.

>> I hate Microshit and Bill Gates for eliminating competition in the
>> operating system arena and for being able to drop humongous TURDS on
>> their customers without even so much as a whimper of a complaint.
>>
>
>You hate people you've never met?
>That's psychotic.
>And you hate a company that employs quite a few people.
>I'm sure whatever you do is quite valuable... to you.

Yes. I am just psychotic enough to hate people/companies I've never
ever met... Hitler... Osama bin Laden...Bill O'Reilly... George W.
Bush... Comcast...AT&T...Saddam Hussain... OJ Simpson...etc.


>> BTW, Microshaft describes Bill Gate's penis, I am a total fucktard, a
>> liar, a stupid cunt, I don't know squat and I will fuck off so attack
>> me personally if you dare, I don't care.
>>
>
>Who need dare.
>You said nothing.

Not yet... NOTHING!!! There, I'm yelling it for your enjoyment...

Thanx Mr. Death... although, seriously, I hope not to see you soon.
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> On 06/14/2010 12:17 AM, Death wrote:
>>
>> "Kazumé" <Oocyte@fallopian.net> wrote in message
>> news:hpp916h8gkj6ihfndm04e48ra0beq1e5qk@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:12:15 +0700, John B. Slocomb
>>> <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version
>>>> of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the
>>>> latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the
>>>> free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to
>>>> see whether it works or not.
>>>
>>> Sorry to butt into your little spat, but, this ludicrous statement
>>> absolutely describes Microsoft's operating systems to a 'T': "stuff
>>> that the company have released to see whether it works or not".
>>>
>>
>> Then you've never run linux.
>
> Idiot.
>

You've never run it either, dumbass.


>> Microsoft is a breeze compared to any distro out there, period.
>
> A lie.
>

Hahahahaha.
Yeah, right.

>> I've run every f-ing linux you can think of, even the "stable" paid for
>> ones.
>
> Yeah, but you're a moron.
>

Compared to others, maybe.
Compared to you, I'm a card carrying genius.


>> Not that ubuntu, mint, nonsense ... but actual distros
>
> Ubuntu and Mint are actual distros.
>

They're not actual distros.
They are exact dumplicates of others, with "codecs" either prepackaged
or just a "I'm responsible for this decision" click away.

You are running a sissyfied Debian there, dumbass.


>>
>>> I've had at least eight systems in my home running MS O/S'es for the
>>> past fifteen years (was a reseller). I have used Linux & Ubuntu on
>>> older computers but mainly for experimentation purposes only.
>>>
>>
>> If you tried ubuntu...then linux isn't even close to what you're running.
>> No actual linux distros include all that non-free crap so readily.
>
> Nothing wrong with the non free stuff; it works just fine.
>

If it ain't "open source", then there is something wrong with it.
You clueless dummy.

>>
>>
>>> The only time I ever loaded a system with an MS O/S that was not at
>>> least a year and a half old was Win95, in August of 1995, which was a
>>> giant piece of shit until SP2 - same goes for Win98 & XP. I passed
>>> completely on MILLENIUM & VISTA, the two biggest pieces of shit
>>> operating systems ever produced by human brains, gigantic turds that
>>> would have destroyed the reputation of any other company on the face
>>> of the Earth, except of course for a company that has a solid
>>> government/lemming supported monopoly.
>>>
>>
>> You passed on Vista, yet proclaim it a turd.
>
> He isn't the only one. One doesn't have to jump off the Empire State
> Bldg. to know that it isn't a good idea.
>

You need to jump off...that would be a good idea.


>> Nutball.
>> Stop reading the blogs of dumbasses, you'll be OK.
>
> Even your hero, Steve Monkey Man Ballmer, says Vista is a turd.
>

I don't care if everyone but me dislikes it.
I use it, and it runs fine.
I told you before, muttonhead, I am my hero.

>>
>>> Anyway, I use Microshaft operating systems NOT because they are the
>>> best, not because they run flawlessly, not because they copy files
>>> fastest or burn CD's well, not because they have the best security
>>> features, not because of their bug free operation, not because of
>>> their 'reasonable' prices, not because of the speed, but because
>>> Microshaft basically is the only show in town.
>>>
>>
>> BooHoo...poor you, too stupid to find alternatives.
>> Skilled you are not.
>> Even dumbass iDumbasses can find another OS.
>
> Yet you stick with Windows.
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
>
> And one of the worst email/newsreader you can download from your heroes
> at Microsoft.
>
>

So what?


>>
>>> I hate Microshit and Bill Gates for eliminating competition in the
>>> operating system arena and for being able to drop humongous TURDS on
>>> their customers without even so much as a whimper of a complaint.
>>>
>>
>> You hate people you've never met?
>> That's psychotic.
>> And you hate a company that employs quite a few people.
>> I'm sure whatever you do is quite valuable... to you.
>
> You misread again. He hates what they do, dumb fuck.
>

You are the dyslexic reader.
He hates Bill Gates.
He hates Microsoft...a collection of people working towards the same
goal.
You are one brain dead hash huffer.

>>
>>> BTW, Microshaft describes Bill Gate's penis, I am a total fucktard, a
>>> liar, a stupid cunt, I don't know squat and I will fuck off so attack
>>> me personally if you dare, I don't care.
>>>
>>
>> Who need dare.
>> You said nothing.
>
> Projecting again, eh?
>

That same old line?
My shit is smarter than you.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top