Re: [Duplicity-talk] Comparisons of other backup systems to duplicity and rdiff-backup

[Dominic Hargreaves]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:45:17PM -0600, address@hidden wrote:
> This page: 
> 
> http://www.fluffy.co.uk/boxbackup/comparison.html 
> 
> By the author of Box Backup, compares that utility with duplicity, 
> rdiff-backup, and a few others. 

> Does anyone using duplicity or rdiff-backup have some counter-arguments to 
> offer in favor of those utilities? 

The page is wrong in a key aspect of the way duplicity operates, unless
I've dramatically misunderstood:

Dependencies: [...] remote shell
Resources used on server: [...] remote shell server

The fact that duplicity needs no other access other than file storage to
the server is one of its particular strengths - it is not necessary to
have shell access to the server.

"Authentication: UNIX accounts (at server only)" is slightly inaccurate
too, since FTP especially is often deployed with virtual usernames that
don't involve UNIX accounts.

The phrase "unstable, no new version since August 2003" brought a smile,
too (in one meaning -- release cycle/frequent changes -- of the word
unstable). Incidentally are people having stability (in the other system
sense) problems with duplicity?

Cheers,

Dominic.