Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Jan 2008 18:45 UTC, submitted by Nemilar
Linux A review of the new TimeVault program, a backup utility for Linux similar to Apple's Time Machine. Covers installation, configuration, usage, and discuses some of the advantages and limitations of its backup abilities. "TimeVault finally offers a complete, easy-to-use, intuitive backup system for Linux. While advanced and experienced users have been able to schedule backups using rsync, cron, and other tools, new users will find Timevault a comfort; knowing that their files can be easily and safely backed up, and reverted to an older state if necessary. The interface is relatively intuitive, and although the configuration could be a bit simpler, beginners should have no problem setting up TimeVault to keep their files safe."
Thread beginning with comment 298234
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
They get a point for originality in naming
by Buck on Tue 29th Jan 2008 19:03 UTC
Member since:


Reply Score: 3

bm3719 Member since:

How is copying off of other projects original?

It's a shame to see all these "me too" projects getting the airtime, while truly original open source projects languish in obscurity. But, I guess they can't cash in on some other company's marketing buzz.

I remember when *nix variants were leading innovation as a second nature. Now we see a projects whose main goal is to play catch-up, making clones of MS and Apple products.

Reply Parent Score: 7

manjabes Member since:

Agree whole-heartedly. Remember when desktop compositing (meaning Compiz & Beryl & the like) only got full swing in the Open Source community after Windows Vista was revealed to have such capabilities. No matter, that KDE kinda had their own desktop effects in kwin3 (although scarce and sometimes not working).
With the time-vault-machine-thingy, its the same thing all over again. Oh why do I not believe that nobody else came up with the idea that "backups are so complicated, why not make the process easier and straightforward". However I do believe that the idea, if it passed the first mental geek-barrier (oh no, i want something to be easier instead of figuring the whole shit out by looking at the source code; i must not be a true geek), it was quickly beaten down by peer-geeks. Until Apple did it, then it became good, necessary, great and wackydoodle.

Reply Parent Score: 1

FooBarWidget Member since:

So? Why does it matter who invented it first? Apple made something that is useful, people want it on Linux, so people make a clone. What is wrong with that? Would you rather have people work on "innovative" things that have never been done before, while neglecting basic and useful features?

Reply Parent Score: 6

sbergman27 Member since:

Now we see a projects whose main goal is to play catch-up, making clones of MS and Apple products.

Reimplementing good ideas is far more important to an OS than "innovating". Because, face it, I don't care how talented your people are, the rest of the world is going to come up with more true innovations than any single project. Oh, you can do the Microsoft thing and trumpet every little thing you do as an "innovation". But then you are just lying to yourself. Far more benefit comes from looking at the best of the ideas developed by other projects, even, or perhaps *especially* by competitors, and reimplementing them in your own domain. A software project doesn't... *can't* live by innovation alone.

So enough of this wasted time talking about "project B just copied from Project A". It's worse than useless. It's misleading. And it's counterproductive.

We would all be the poorer if we disallowed ourselves to copy others' good ideas. NIH syndrome is every bit as damaging as a bad patent, because it has exactly the same effects.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:

Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
One day people complain that Linux does not have these things and that it needs them. The next day Linux has them and then people complain that they are just like, uh, the stuff they previously said it should have.

Reply Parent Score: 8