Miguel De Anda <sodamnmad@_hot_mail_.com> wrote in message news:<1110500526.2470d8d6c0399fbe5d6e050cb7821f39@ teranews>...
> jurij@device-image.de wrote:
> > Miguel De Anda <sodamnmad@_hot_mail_.com> wrote in message news:<1110411376.538b72e01057063cc68de2c5adb0f612@ teranews>...
> >
> >>jurij@device-image.de wrote:
> >>
> >>>Please visit the homepage of DeviceImage-Project: http://www.device-image.de
> >>
> >>I don't think the 1.0.1 version fixed the bug you had on the site
> >>before. The one where you needed to be in /dev before you ran the command.
> >>
> >>Maybe you should merge both programs into a single program. Its like
> >>having:
> >>
> >>alias tarc="tar c"
> >>alias tarx="tar x"
> >>
> >>It doesn't really make sense to have this. Also, it seems dumb to have
> >>to pipe a zsplit to a unzsplit to copy from one drive to another:
> >>
> >>zsplit ... | unzsplit ...
> >>
> >>I haven't tried piping it that way, (didn't think of it until after I
> >>made the image to disk and started putting it on the second disk. (I was
> >>enlarging the hard drive on a vmware instance)
> >>
> >>I briefly looked at the source the other day, looking for a simple way
> >>to out some kind of progress output, but I couldn't find anything. Can
> >>you maybe add a flag to show progress kinda like wget's output? I'll
> >>look over the code again anyways though.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>But other than those few thing I don't like about the software, it seems
> >>pretty good. I've only used it from within vmware, but I'm going to
> >>backup a new laptop I'm getting and put it to real use.
> >
> >
> > Dear Miguel,
> > Thank you very much for your posting.
> >
> > First of all, it is indeed occurred After a long night I was very
> > tired, wrong CVS branch, and consequently it was a wrong upload. I am
> > very sorry about it...
> >
> > Dear all please redownload version 1.0.1 of zsplit/unzsplit, because
> > now it is
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > a really bug fixed version.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Now to your questions, Miguel, at the beginning I also thought it
> > would be a good idea to have one tool for both operations
> > backup/restore. But I also thought it should be a very reliable tool
> > also from handling point of view. If a user would only use one option
> > switch to decide should he do backup or restore, it would be not a
> > good idea, because one wrong option switch could produce a big
> > disaster. So from this point of view I think it is better to have two
> > tools with appropriate names.
> >
> > DeviceImage project is at its beginning. We are planning to go
> > essentially farther as, for example, the Partimage project. It should
> > be very easy and very flexible tool with high reliability. I cannot
> > describe now all details, because now this is period of the building
> > of some general idea in what direction should the development go.
> >
> > Your idea about some sort of progress output, is very good, I will
> > definitely set it on my todo list.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jurij
>
> Yay, my ideas were good. I guess I should have done a diff of the two
> versions as it might have caught the mistake. Anyways, I'll redownload
> the the program and backup the laptop. I'll let you know how it goes.
>
> Btw, when I first read your docs, I thought to myself, "I don't care
> much about that netcat thing. If I ever need that I'll just do nfs."
> Well my first 10 minute attempt at nfs didn't work, so I'm just going to
> try netcat.

I think with netcat you can achive very simple setup in a short time.

Regards,
Jurij