Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - The Gorn

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 669
1
I think most of the backup tools built for Linux like mintbackup use rsync as a back end.

Rsync generally means that the tool just does file copies. Is not incremental. And Rsync crashes my box.

I love what I'm now using because the output is so general-purpose. You could FTP/SSH the slice files out to a remote server, no problem.

2
At this point what I have set up almost has an Acronis feel to it - flexible, powerful, pretty fast, and a HELL of a lot more reliable than Acronis. But without the commercial lock-in aspects. And allegedly more robustness so that a disk error won't trash an entire archive.

The specific package is called: "backup-manager". The one on my box is version 0.7.10.1-2.

dar on my system is v. 2.5.3-1ubuntu1.

backup-manager will use other archivers other than DAR as a back end, but DAR has the best  capability for creating incremental, compressed archives out to any medium.

backup-manager also can do what the rsync-based backup tools do and just copy and sync files out to a backup drive, but you must use a Unix compatible file system on the storage device in order to do that. dar will create incremental backups on anything, even FAT32.

I also customized the "slice size" which is the size of individual created files. Dar will span the slices as need be if, say you have a huge virtual disk file. In the config file:

# With the "dar" filetype, you can choose a maximum slice limit.
export BM_TARBALL_SLICESIZE="4500M"

About the size of a DVD. Which I have found is a nice size to work with in case I need to copy backups around.

3
Actually, I already documented the bash script I used to generate these config files:

http://forums.techcareerfubar.com/programming-and-technology/linux-backup-by-timeshift/msg96645/#msg96645

To add to this info:

There is a non-distribution "wrapper" program for DAR called "DarGUI" that makes it easy to work with the generated backups. It is similar in concept to WinZIP on Windows.

I think I got it here:

http://dargui.sourceforge.net/

One VERY important thing I found about these archives. Once you start a set of archives under a particular master name with a particular backup-manager config file, pointing at ANY of the Dar archives related to that master name on the external hard drive will allow you to see ALL of the backup history of those sets of files.

DAR files are extremely "smart."

In other words, extracting backed up data is not fussy at all.

I use DarGUI because the Dar command like switches are fairly difficult to understand and put together, and DarGUI has that knowledge built in.

You can extract/recover your files to any arbitrary path, not just file system root, so it's possible to pull out backups manually for comparison or manual recovery work.

You can, of course, just recover everything onto a new file system.

4
All Technology & Tech Help / Linux backup: What's now working for me
« on: April 21, 2018, 05:17:25 am »
Here is what is currently working for me, which I have been using since early March several times:

- The file compression utility package "dar." Dar is included in the package manager for Linux Mint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_%28disk_archiver%29 for more info.

- The backup utility backup-manager. See https://linux.die.net/man/8/backup-manager for details. Also seems to be part of the Mint package set.

DAR has HUGE advantages over all other backup formats. It saves file attributes, and the data storage format is designed to be recoverable even in the event of errors in the archives.

Here is my backup regimen:

Manual, using a portable hard drive. It could be easily automated if I were continuously connected to backup media.

I have created a series of content-specific config files. If you run backup-manager without any arguments it uses a default /etc based config file. Otherwise you can have per-task configs that you pass it on the command line.

I have chopped up backup into about 5 major groups based on total file sizes. The initial master backup of each group took a couple of hours apiece, at least.

- All "business" files: home based directories for email, Quicken/Quickbooks data, website archives, client work directories.
- All "self created media" files: images I take, video clips, etc.
- All downloaded media such as TV programs and movies we watch through streaming
- All Virtualbox hard disk files.
- A backup of /home/gorn but only files NOT covered by above backup groups.

Here's the relevant, important config file statements from the backup-*.conf files hat support my backup style.

# The mounted backup hard drive. Never changes.
export BM_REPOSITORY_ROOT="/media/gorn/SeagateBackup/linuxdesktopbackup"

#This forces incremental backup plus DAR archives (DAR captures all Linux file attributes like ownership, etc
#so I can use any external media such as vfat, SSH based remote drives, etc) Tar does not support many features of DAR.
export BM_ARCHIVE_METHOD="tarball-incremental"

# I left encryption off!

# Example of inclusion of files for a specific backup cluster
export BM_TARBALL_DIRECTORIES="/home/gorn/html /home/gorn/clients /home/gorn/accountingdata /home/gorn/personal /home/gorn/swprojects /home/gorn/agent-email

# For the /home/gorn catchall backup ONLY, I must exclude all of the file paths specified by other backup config files.
# So the following exclusion  statement in the /home/gorn file will look like this:

export BM_TARBALL_BLACKLIST="/home/gorn/images /home/gorn/music /home/gorn/html ...

There is no order in which the various backup configs may be applied. You may also backup some sets of files more frequently than others.

Last night, having an established set of backups already on the external hard drive, I had backup times for each script measuring from a couple of minutes, to 20 minutes for one, to an hour and a half for the 12 GB of changed data for the virtual machine files.


5
Discussions - Public / Re: Discuss State Of Smart Phone Photography
« on: April 17, 2018, 07:25:19 pm »
I had an old -- 2006 vintage Canon with the Imagine stabilization feature. Now that was nice. It ran on 4xAA batteries. I gave it away because its pictures were not any better than the ones made by modern phones.

I have one 2005 vintage Nikon p&s I use as a secondary/roughing it camera. That is ANCIENT. Image sensors much slower, cameras much much slower in cycle time, etc. That's 12 years ago. Look how laptops have improved in that time. Same thing.

A modern p&s is a monster in terms of quality, speed and features in comparison. However, as the OP observes, 99% of the time the quality differential isn't a big deal for kid, cat meme or holiday pictures.

I gave up on buying a decent p&s that uses AA batteries a LONG time ago. Yeah, the flexibility is great, but  I went through AAs like cheap cologne. The battery pack in the Canon G16 is proprietary, but its charge lifetime is fine, much better than AA rechargables I had to use with older cameras.

6
Discussions - Public / Candid photography
« on: April 17, 2018, 07:12:36 pm »
There was a whole crop of famous classic candid street photographers in the 20th century such as Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Smartphones are now so common that they make candid photography almost trivial. You can generally disguise your phone or hold it such a way that the subject has absolutely no clue.

Not quite so easy with a 35mm Leica.

7
Discussions - Public / Re: Discuss State Of Smart Phone Photography
« on: April 17, 2018, 06:42:21 pm »
Great subject for IT people because digital photography intersects computer science and tradtional optics sciences. Plus art.

I believe that smartphones *mostly* replace low end point and shoot cameras. The one factor to keep in mind is the size of the camera sensor. The larger the camera sensor, other things being equal (such as resolution), the less thermal noise introduced into images in low light conditions. Also, again because of better/less noise with larger sensors, they can be "driven" to extremely high ISO ratings and still perform decently.

Digital photography low-light noise looks like colored speckles, which aren't visible or present in normal sunlight or under flash.

Because of the tiny focal length dictated by the thickness of smartphone cases and bodies, their image sensors are commensurately really tiny. So their ISO range is usually pretty limited.

I have a Moto G5 (a 2017 model) phone. The imager is 12 megapixel (3000x4000 roughly.) It amazes me how nice the images are. It does fairly well in available light. But, no tripod socket.

I also own a Canon G16  prosumerish point and shoot  actual camera. I can set it to 12000 ISO. The images are very rough but they are somewhat usable.

At 1600 or 3200 ISO I can take really good nighttime sky exposures with this camera. I could not do that with the phone.

Lastly there is the shooting stance. The Canon "real" camera is easy to hold for steady, sharp images. Smart phones make you adopt goofy, less stable shooting stances. And you're always having to avoid touching the glass so you don't trigger software.

Nighttime July northern sky behind our house a couple of years ago... with the G16. Click to zoom/expand.

A digital SLR would have no visible grain and would be even sharper.  The dark blob at the lower right is not a dark matter nebula. :D It's a neighbor's tree.

The exposure was 15 seconds at 800 ISO.


8
I'm making a content decision ... threads about technology policy will go into the public technology discussion forum. This includes but is not limited to discussion about social media policies and policy makers.

9
Here. Here's an antidote to Zuckerberg and normie oppression. Our supreme leader.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/p5cTjZvAoUE" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/p5cTjZvAoUE</a>

10
Rodent, lol. He had absolutely no real response to the congresscritter. The example of anti-abortion being lumped in as hate speech is ENTIRELY plausible and this moron is trying to say "no, don't be ridiculous". Fuckerberg doesn't comprehend the issue, which is that the free speech/hate speech line is totally arbitrary - and he's been setting it. 

I want shitposting to become mainstream on Facebook, then I will be happy.  >:D

11
Tell me how someone not in the tech industry can have anything but utter hatred for this preening narcissist control freak douche.

His kind of attitude is why we techies get the shaft in general business and by brokers. Everyone hates an arrogant know-it-all.

12
All Technology & Tech Help / Re: The Tech Support Scam
« on: April 10, 2018, 01:45:57 pm »
Quote
My IT friend says she called a legitimate vendor for help (they sell tax software) and got directed by them to a bogus tech support number. 

That's REALLY bad. Even  official product support can't tell a bogus support company.

13
All Technology & Tech Help / Re: So anyway, about Facebook...
« on: April 07, 2018, 05:27:35 pm »
Cruz voters were fed gun rights news to get them to support Cruz more.

I'm not being partisan because Democrats used FB as a source of psychographic data to persuade voters.  It's the current big data way of doing what campaigners have done all along with primitive door-to-door canvassing.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, they didn't have Cambridge Analytica as a consultant.

I agree completely with what you're saying. Both/either side will take whatever advantage they have available to them. Including psychological vulnerabilities in segments of the voting public. Facebook users are and have been ripe for emotional exploitation.

Facebook reduces everyone to the psychological profile of a 13 year old teenage girl.  :P

14
All Technology & Tech Help / So anyway, about Facebook...
« on: April 07, 2018, 02:06:31 pm »
I  see FB being a self evidently fertile feeding ground for influencing people.

People on Facebook who cultivate their personal Facebook image and who buy into the culture deeply are vulnerable to influence and manipulation. Since they themselves have already selected themselves to be manipulated.

I'm saying that the cheap thrill aspect of the "Facebook dopamine rush" is only one sliver of the entire environment.

15
This is a really good analysis. Thanks!

Very interesting. I've seen this link, and I didn't bother to look into it.

Facebook's example is that the goal is to enhance social interaction.  One interviewee described a resonance effect with people being fed self-affirming information feeds from like-minded people and fake news so that eventually a mirror is built for them by Facebook in which they figuratively gaze into and ask “Who is the fairest of them all?" and you get back,  "You, you after all!” 

Having lived inside the Facebook bubble for a couple of years and lived to tell about it :P I wouldn't exactly call what Facebook does "enhancing" social interaction.

Real social interaction as humanity has experienced it for the duration of our species implies that you have to bargain, reason, cooperate and compromise literally all of the time with other individuals who have their own problems and agendas. At the same time you often don't have much information on what others are thinking when they interact with you since in normal society people generally don't reveal their thoughts openly.

Facebook won't help with mastering any of that, in fact, it's counter to actual healthy relationships.

What Facebook does is hugely amplify your ability to interact with people who tend to create less friction with you than the run of the mill humanity, and who themselves are being affirmed constantly. At the same time people on Facebook visibly show in numerous ways how they reason and think and what they value.  In other words with Facebook (or any other online venue, but to lesser degrees) you learn much more about the image that people want to convey about their thinking. But you always have a big "off" switch to dismiss anyone who is disagreeably argumentative. You can't do that in real life.

That "building an image I want others to see" is pervasive on FB. It tends to foster unrealistic behaviors and it rewards bad behavior. It's both the home of virtue signaling as well as narcissistic preening.  In real life you'd tell someone who is talking down to you to f*ck off. On Facebook if you stake a political position you get to use it as a hammer to show how morally superior you are.

From the comments on this board I know for a fact that everyone currently on the board (except perhaps Pxsant and of course me) is unaware of how it feels to participate heavily on Facebook. Y'all see it from a distance. The average citizen in society with a social media addiction isn't familiar to us here on this board. 

I'm saying that to a specific personality type Facebook is as addictive as cigarettes or anything else that's bad for you. And FB instills a need to see others conform to your world view.

I could go on at length about other aspects... Facebook allows you to create "group hugs" that would look really foolish and out of place in real life. You can synthesize causes and you can then even convince the subsets of the normies on Facebook that your cause is just what they need to feel included and special. It CAN happen in real life but it's much harder.

Again, it's all artificial counterparts of real life social interaction.

Lastly I wouldn't say that Facebook ropes in stupid people... or actually maybe it does. It ropes in average people who get lonely and who need affirmation. Facebook is normie central.

I get very lonely and I need affirmation, but I know that FB has too many strings attached and distorts real life, so I stay away from it because it's just not for real.

FB is like an AI of real relationships.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 669