On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:22:00 +0200 [email protected] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> People on Linux who use the term "tar" are usually not talking about > tar bug about "gtar" which is not 100% tar compatible and thus > creates problems with archive interchange. In fact, I'm more used to refer to freebsd tar as 'bsdtar', treating GNU as standard ;) > dar is using a nonstandard and proprietary archive format. > > Did you look at star? Actually that's the first thing I did, since it's closest (to tar) implementation I know, but I haven't seen there the main reason why I've decided to ditch tar - random access to files inside the archive (which is stored on random-access media). I don't have to pipe the archives sequentially, but if not for the ever-increasing demand to read the contents, I'd have actually been okay with tar. Incremental backups are certainly handy feature to have, but I'm relucant to use it, since it makes backups dependant on one another, requiring additional logic for their storage. When I think about that it seem like a great idea, as long as you bundle them together all the time, so no increment gets lost, but then my laziness and certain relucance to complicate things (so no one else will be cursing me under his breath, sorting out why it lost some data) always seem to get the upper hand :( -- Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
