Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the '10.5: Use multiple Time Machine disks for redundancy' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
10.5: Use multiple Time Machine disks for redundancy
Authored by: palahala on Jun 04, '09 11:43:20AM
By the way, Ars Technica has has some nice technical insight about Time Machine and how it relies on fsevents.

[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Use multiple Time Machine disks for redundancy
Authored by: mantrid on Jun 04, '09 12:25:51PM

That Ars article is exactly what I was thinking of. I have strong misgivings that the hint submitter is just guessing and stating their guesses as alarmist facts.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Use multiple Time Machine disks for redundancy
Authored by: osxpounder on Jun 05, '09 11:42:17AM

I look at the hint and our comments as information, not alarmist. If we have facts or experience to offer, or theories to share that others might want to test, that can be helpful.

It's not as helpful merely to vaguely devalue the hint that someonetook time and trouble to share the hint with us, especially when all you've got are 'misgivings', not facts. Seems to me you're doing the same thing you just criticized.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Use multiple Time Machine disks for redundancy
Authored by: mantrid on Jun 05, '09 01:30:08PM

The difference is that my comment is a comment and explicitly expressed as my personal misgivings. Their's is stated as a fact, in a submitted hint, as justification to use said hint. To me, that is a huge difference. What some idiot says in the comments doesn't carry nearly as much weight as something in a published hint on macosxhints.com.

If you had read the Ars article about TimeMachine and file system events beforehand, and then come across this hint and read that statement, you also might have thought "woah, where did that come from"? Unsubstantiated claims that something is "dangerous" and will "actually" (the word used) "actually slowly corrupt your backups" is alarmist. Consider how the statement would be interpreted if read without prior exposure to the Ars article, or other sources. No corroboration has appeared from the poster in subsequent posts, whereas palahala has included several links rebutting the claim. No instructions to say "do this to demonstrate corruption". No links to documentation. Not even a link to something as anecdotal as a web forum where someone reports corruption. Now after the fact, we are seeing comments like "I don't know exactly how time machine does it's thing" or "I don't think either of us knows" coming from the submitter, and at least one instance of an argument based on a misinterpretion of a linked article. So what exactly were the original claims based on?

I'm still hoping to see the proof, but if an admission is coming that the statement was based on speculation rather than fact, the sooner the better.

By the way, I'm not vaguely devaluing the hint at all. I think it's a fine hint that I'm sure many will find useful. That doesn't excuse the inclusion of (still unsubstantiated) statements of what is looking more and more like speculation as fact. Speaking generally, the fact that hints on macosxhints go through a screening process before publication has helped to keep the reliability of the information that can be found here at a high level, something that would be threatened if unsubstantiated claims and misinformation are complacently allowed to persist.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Use multiple Time Machine disks for redundancy
Authored by: osxpounder on Jun 08, '09 09:25:04AM

Good points. Fair enough.



[ Reply to This | # ]