Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms
John Droggitis(johnd[at]cybernex.net)
Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:05:31 +0000
"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
> <very detailed server comparison>
Dan,
This was a very informative comparison, I just want to address one point you made:
> BACKUP AND ARCHIVING:
> ---------------------
>
> I wouldn't bother with the unix variants because of the lack of decent
> backup software - "tar" doesn't bother to store file hierarchy, i.e. all
> files are stored flat. This is a *major* flaw with using OS X as a
> departmental server: Unlike NT, which has always had basic backup software
> included plus a full spectrum of ISV's (Independent Software Vendors)
> selling much better backup software.
What you said about tar is not true. Tar is a very flexible and powerful command
that's been used to back up data in unix networks for far longer than NT and macos
have been in existence, and it _does_ store file hieararchy just fine. Now let me
just say that I've never used OS X server, and it may have a deficient implementation
of tar or perhaps the tar wrapper that does the backup doesn't save hierarchy
information. But I've used tar (and seen it used) for data backup and recovery, and
it's very sufficient. The only drawback is the dated command-line interface that can
put off a lot of mac and windows users and even admins.
If this is your only reservation about using a unix system as a server, then maybe
you need to reconsider. Many of the hardware advantages that you mentioned also
apply to free unixes (linux, free/netBSD) and most certainly to commercial unixes
(solaris, AIX etc).
--John
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Tue Sep 21 1999 - 07:11:47 PDT
|