On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 02:11:50PM -0700, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Because a full restore *never works*. Invariably, when you need a full
restore, you don't have the same hardware. When you do the full restore,
the OS craps its pants because something changed.
What brain damaged OS is that? I have a small number of linux installs
I've done, and only ever upgraded, or restored from full backups.
The worst I could imagine is needing to use a fresh kernel. But, since
I can boot from a rescue disk, chroot into the new machine and pretty
much fix anything, it shouldn't be a problem.
It does seem that a certain OS vendor must be actively trying to keep
people from migrating their installed image to another machine. I just
don't ever run anything from that vendor.
Of course, then you add in some node-locked licenses that you now have to
figure out how to move across and you have some real fun. Fortunately,
virtual machines are now fast enough that I can put most of my "node
locked" stuff inside a virtual machine to fake it out.
This is why I always assume that I need an install process followed by a
data restore.
I guess for my non-linux machines (Mac OSX, no evil empire for me), I
do only assume I can do a full restore on the same machine after, say, a
disk failure. I would probably start fresh on a new machine, but given
that the OS would probably be already installed, there's a little less
work to do.
Most of the proprietary Mac software I have just wants the original DVDs
to be inserted for a while after restoring them to a machine.
David
--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
