>I wanted a moment of truth and I am getting it...
To put it mildly :-). I'm glad you didn't take my ranting too much
to heart.
>Pointing out a deficiency is here perceived as blaming. ...
Only partially true. The real problem is that you're saying it's a
deficiency in Amanda when it is not. As has been pointed out, Amanda
does not do backups itself, it only manages other programs that do them.
That is it's sole job. That's all it's designed to do. That part of
the basic design is not going to, and should not, change.
You might as well start writing letters to the people who maintain your
shell (csh, ksh, whatever) and telling them the vfat (or NT blue screen)
is a deficiency in their code.
>... Because AMANDA cannot solve my problem.
And I continue to disagree. It's Windows and Samba (or vfat and GNU tar,
I'm starting to forget which is which :-) that cannot solve your problem.
Go gripe to them.
>... in order to compute incrementals, AMANDA
>relies on mechanisms which in my special case do not work. ...
It also relies on your motherboard working. If it breaks are you going
to claim that's another deficiency in Amanda?
>You understand a chance as a curse: AMANDA _has_ the qualities to become
>a real, integrative, superlative backup tool. ...
So explain to me exactly what you think Amanda should do to solve this.
And keep in mind that the design philosophy is that it uses other tools
and that it does **not** do the work itself.
And if you say that basic design concept is a flaw, you're opening up
a major can of worms that Amanda will never crawl out of and should not
even begin to try. Writing the programs that actually do backups is a
**major** undertaking, especially across all the platforms that Amanda
supports. For one thing, many of the file system types are proprietary
and can only be backed up with proprietary tools, which Amanda is happy
to manage for you, but not replace.
>Chris Karakas
John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
