Re: [BackupPC-users] xxShareName = /cygwin ??

[<ha...@gm...>]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Les Mikesell <les...@gm...> wrote:
> Just in case that wasn't a typo, the top level is /cygdrive..

Ah, no wonder it didn't work. . .

just kidding, I think I only made that mistake here (note to self -
run back and check  8-)

<red-faced "sheesh!">

> If I were doing it, I'd try to work out a scheme where the disk
> contained a batch file or program of some sort that would do the rsync
> to the designated spot for that drive so the user could run it as
> needed, and perhaps make something auto-run on connection to remind
> them and offer to do it then if they have network access to the
> server.   If this program also updated a timestamp file it would be
> straightforward for someone to track how long it had been since any of
> the updates had been done.

This would be quite a learning experience for me to make this work as
you've outlined, thanks for the suggestions.

> Unless there are multiple versions of the same disk in circulation and you want them all synchronized, this is not the same problem that unison solves.

Well it is true that different (intermittently-connected) people need
access to the files; this is in fact the main reason they're doing it
this way. If they were stored centrally and replicated out to the
laptops, Unison *would* be an ideal solution for a certain subset of
the data - standalone files, documents images etc, especially those
that are read-mostly. However, it wouldn't be practical to have to
train people on how to handle the conflict-resolution side when a
given file's been changed in more than one location. Fortunately (IMO)
they seem happy to only have access to it one person at a time. There
are also some database apps, and probably other stuff I don't even
know about, so probably best I treat each drive as a black box rather
than trying to disentangle their contents.

In the old days I reckon Notes would have been perfect for a lot of this. . .

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Holger Parplies <wb...@pa...> wrote:

>> The key concept I'm shooting for here is to try to get BackupPC to grab whatever data is currently mounted on a given client PC, without having to know about it ahead of time.
>
> ah, now I understand you. It's not about doing backups.
>

Holger, my goal is ** completely ** about doing backups. It's just
that  at any time a given user can buy a new flash drive and start
using it to share data without my ever finding out about it. It may be
stuff they think isn't that important, but over time, or in the event
a key person gets hit by a bus. . .

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your somewhat opaque comment, but if you
think that the privacy issue I raised means that my primary goal here
is for BackupPC to help the company monitor the personal-use issue -
that's completely incorrect, in fact I could care less myself what
they're doing. I just wanted to clarify that the possibility that BPC
might grab someone's personal data shouldn't (IMO) prevent us securing
valuable company data that we might otherwise miss.

While I'm at it, rather than replying separately over in the other
thread (you were probably referring to this one anyway?)


On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Holger Parplies <wb...@pa...> wrote:
> actually, the disrespectful part is rejecting the suggestions because they do
> more than you understand that you need.
>
> If you are simply asking "would this work?" for a "this" that nobody else is
> likely to have tried out, then do the work youself: try it out. Why should
> *we* do that for you? If we answer, "that doesn't make sense", then "yes, but
> would it work?" is not going to get any more attention, at least from me.
>
> More important: don't ask for help, if you're not prepared to accept help.

I didn't realize at the time that my desire was such an outlier, but
rather thought the technical side of it was a straightforward question
that those with more experience could answer easily.

When I have more time I'll experiment further and if successful will
report back, clearly flagging it as an unsupported "try at your own
risk" learning experience.

If I only get part way there and run into problems I guess I'll keep
them to myself and just try the more traditional approaches already
suggested.


Thanks again to all for all the feedback. . .