Please visit the homepage of DeviceImage-Project: http://www.device-image.de

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.

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

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.

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

jurij@device-image.de added 5 lines to a series of quotes of other posts
already 80 lines long.

Please trim the quoted material and interleave your reply. The extent of
the quoted material tends to make your post difficult to follow. See:
http://www.catb.org/~esr//jargon/html/T/top-post.html
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."