Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula not backing up catalogue

[Mike H. <ba...@mi...>]

Telemat wrote:
>
> Dan Langille wrote:
>> On 12/13/2010 5:10 AM, Telemat wrote:
>> Which is true?
>>
>
>
> If you bothered to read the first paragraph then you will see that I
> followed a working setup on ClearOS which backs up the catalog to
> the same tape as the main backup, but on the Ubuntu 10.04 server it
> doesn't backup the catalog at all, but sits there asking for
> apendable media. Considering the data backup is only around 4GB and
> the tapes are 24GB, I would have thought that there's be plenty of
> space.
>
>
>> That's really hard to read...
>>
>
>
> Why? Its a config file. Users who are familiar with config files
> should be able to follow it.
>
>
>>
>> I see you are posting on
>> backupcentral.com. I suggest not posting configuration files
>> there.
>> Instead, join the bacula users mailing list and post there.
>>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>>
>
>
> I will, thank you.
>
>
>> That way, the mailing list users will not be subjected to the HTML
>> entities we see below.
>>
>
>
> I'm sorry. I won't darken your doorstep again.
>
>
>>
>> I don't expect anyone on the mailing list to read the config you
>> sent.
>> It's pretty hard to follow.
>>
>
>
> Really, this forum is all about asking for help. If you can't post
> config files for others to see and follow, what's the point of this
> forum, just to chat about issues?
>
> I have been involved with open source and linux for the best part of
> 10 years and the tone of your reply reminds me of all those trolls
> who frequent the Gentoo and Debian forums telling newcomers to go
> away. Either help with the issue or don't comment if your comment
> isn't constructive.
>
> I'm not fiddling with a linux install at home, this is a live server
> and we are having issues with the community version of bacula, if
> the config files are hard to follow, then you really are reading the
> wrong forums.

I haven't followed this topic from the outset, but I do recall a
config file being posted a couple of days ago. If that was unrelated
to this, then apologies, and please ignore the interruption!

The config file I saw posted had been copied and pasted from an html
screen of some kind, and consequently had a load of html formatting
included (especially lots of &nbsp scattered throughout). It is this
html guff that makes the file impossible to read - remember this is
an email forum, and as such ought to be conducted in plain text, not
half-html. Dan isn't complaining that we won't read config files, or
that you shouldn't post them, but rather, the file that was posted
was difficult/impossible to read. If you want help, ask for it in a
way that allows people to read and understand your problem easily,
otherwise they won't bother.

In this situation, I thought Dan's comments were reasonable. He
mentioned the html tags in the file, and he said it was unreadable.

I will deliberately refrain for commenting on how _your_ posting
attitude looks to others. :-)
-- 
Mike Holden