Other posts related to time-drive

Time Drive 0.3: Better, Easier, More Refined

 | October 26, 2009 12:16 pm

One of the upsides of open source software is that it largely sales itselfImagine how awesome it would be if this announcement read: “Time Drive has been completely rewritten from scratch (yet again) to take better advantage of the paradigms of modern computing!  Version 0.3 has hundreds of updates and new features which will make your life easier and more fulfilled!”

There's just one little problem … such a hyper inflated announcement wouldn't necessarily be true.  (Marketing hyperbole, I never knew thee!)  The truth is this: Time Drive is a simple backup program that does a good job of reliably backing up your data.  It offers a nice list of potential backup options: from an attached hard drive, to a computer over the network, or across the internet.  It makes it easy to search for and restore a lost file.  In short, Time Drive seeks to change the world by making an act of computer maintenance more convenient.

But the real test of a program isn’t how well it works, but how easy it is to fix when broken.  A good program does what you want, but a better program helps you get back on track when things go wrong.  Back when I was looking at other backup programs available for Linux, this was my number one frustration.  Most of the applications would work (for the most part), but I could never troubleshoot or repair problems when they happened.  There just wasn’t enough information available.

For an example, let’s take SBackup.  It’s a lovely little program,  except you have no way of knowing if it is working.  It doesn’t keep log files, it doesn’t notify you if a backup job failed.  It doesn’t let you know if it is running.  Its simplicity is actually symptomatic of a flaw: it’s incomplete.

These were problems that I desperately wanted to avoid with Time Drive.  And version 0.3 includes a number of refinements that solve these issues while at the same time making make it better, easier and more refined.  In the rest of this post, I’ll explain why.

Show me more... »

Installing Duplicity on Mac OS X

 | October 7, 2009 3:20 pm

While Mac OS X shares many things in common with other Unix operating systems, it also has a couple of missing parts.  This can make installing software more difficult when compared to Linux or other *nix variants, and unfortunately, Duplicity happens to be one of those cases.

But just because it is more difficult to install Duplicity on Mac doesn’t mean that it isn’t worthwhile.  Duplicity is one of the best command line backup programs available anywhere.  Using the same program, you can backup to a local hard drive, FTP server, over SSH or even to Amazon S3.  It uses the rsync algorithm, which means that backups happen quickly and only the parts of files that actually changed get copied.  Subsequently, backups are smaller.

Nor does it mean that installing Duplicity is actually all that hard, it’s just a bit tedious.  Like many other *nix programs, Duplicity requires a number of additional programs (called dependencies) that you will have to search out and install separately.  To make that process easier, this article explains how.  Below, you’ll find links to the download pages and instructions for how to compile each of Duplicity’s dependencies on Mac OS X.  The instruction set has been tested both on Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) and Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard).

Show me more... »

Upgrading from Time Drive 0.1

 | October 5, 2009 3:47 pm

The Glass Ceiling When it comes to most things, starting fresh is a blessing.  The reason for this is rather simple, when starting over you don’t have to worry about baggage.  After all, baggage is only valuable when on holiday; otherwise, it just slows everyone down.

This is especially true for software.  Over time, computers tend to accumulate a rather potent type of digital baggage that can be very difficult to get rid of.  And that digital garbage results in inconsistencies that can cause enormous – and usually unforeseen – problems.

However, even though starting fresh is usually the best option, that isn’t always true.  Sometimes, it’s better to risk the problems and incompatibilities.  For example, starting over may mean that you destroy hours worth of customization, or that you lose work already created because the older version are not compatible with the new.

Unfortunately, the general rule is also somewhat true of Time Drive.  So, if you were one of those stalwart and brave individuals who decided to experiment with Time Drive 0.1, this post is for you.

In the last few days, I have been in touch with a number of people who have experienced a number of said inconsistencies and problems.  And while several of these problems ended up providing insight on mistakes made during development, some of the others were changed on purpose.  That is to say, the so called “bug” was actually a feature.

After fielding a couple of particularly angry e-mails, however, I thought that it might be good do a formal write up that describes how to work around these incompatibilities.  And while no one likes to squash bugs or fix things that previously worked, rather fortunately, every one of these problems can be overcome with a little bit of effort and patience.

Show me more... »

Time Drive 0.2 – A “More S” Release: More Stable, More Secure, More Settings and Now Supports Amazon S3 Storage

 | September 24, 2009 2:41 pm

The first time that you attempt to do something, it’s pretty much a guarantee that it’s going to suck.  This doesn’t necessarily need to be a bad thing.  Shows like  America’s Funniest Home Videos and MXC have found dozens of way to cash in on the humiliation of their participants.  (And what better exemplifies pure suck than a golf ball to the groin?)

It, therefore, shouldn’t come as any surprise that creative pursuits are no exception to the general rule of suckiness.  After all, you have to overcome inexperience and ineptitude to produce anything.  The only way to ensure that a release doesn’t suck is to finish a first draft and revise heavily.  Which requires a great deal of work.

Yet … as interesting as that might be, this isn’t a post about the creative process.  It’s about Time Drive and I should probably admit that Time Drive 0.1 had a few … rough … edges.  Sure, it mostly worked, but it was new software and did too many strange things to declare anything other than a “work in progress.”  But Time Drive 0.1 was a first release and first releases suck.

Second releases, however, offer a chance to clean things up, refine the bleeding edge, and otherwise deliver the goods.  Maybe that’s why I’m so excited to announce the release of Time Drive 0.2.  This version of Time Drive is a great improvement over it’s predecessor.  So much so that Time Drive 0.2 is hereby dubbed the “More S” release: more stable, more secure, more settings, and Amazon S3 storage.

In the remainder of this post, I’ll attempt to justify such a silly name by taking a look at a few of those new features.

Show me more... »

Filing Bugs for Time Drive or LyX-Outline

 | August 23, 2009 12:30 am

Even though software developers try and create a perfect product, every program has its flaws.  These can be show stopping, or merely annoying; but they are unavoidable.  Even so, unavoidability doesn’t mean that they should be tolerated.  Which is where users bear some responsibility.  If you want a better program, you need to provide feedback to the developer.

Given how important feedback is, I find it hugely ironic that many of the software programs used to solicit such feedback (called bugtrackers), are horrifically difficult to use.  Perhaps the single best (worst?) example is the system used by the Mozilla foundation (famed creators of Firefox and Thunderbird): Bugzilla.  The interface is backward, it’s impossible to find anything, and getting to the same page twice requires a minor miracle.

Knowing this upfront, I tried to find a very easy to use program for collecting feedback on LyX-Outline and Time Drive.  And I thought I had succeeded when I came across Flyspray, an open source bug tracking system.  While still remaining powerful, Flyspray is fairly easy to use for both developers and users.  Unfortunately, though, it hasn’t been quite easy enough.

You see, even though it’s pretty simple to open a new bug report, getting to the right place isn’t the most intuitive process in the world.  A number of people have expressed confusion about where to go to complain about Time Drive.  As a result, I thought i would write a brief guide.

Step 1: Go to the Bug Tracker Website

To get started, you need to head to the Time Drive and LyX-Outline bug tracker website.  It can be found at:

http://www.oak-tree.us/bugtracker

Step 2: Go to the Appropriate Project Page

When you load the page for the first time, you will see a list of the currently open bugs for all active projects.  Depending how busy I’ve been, this list could be quite long, or quite short.  What you won’t find on this page, however, is an easy way to add new bugs.  To do that, you’ll need to navigate to the project specific page.

The main window lacks any way of providing feedback.  This is because you are in the wrong place.

Look at the very left hand side of the tool-bar.  Underneath the username box, you will see a drop down list that says “All Projects.”  This magical list is the main way that you navigate my Flyspray based bugtracking system.

Select the appropriate project from the list and click "Switch"For example, let’s say that Time Drive just corrupted your vacation photos and you want me to know this and how angry it made you.   To communicate these thoughts (bonus points if you can do so without swearing), you need to go to the Time Drive project page.   This is as easy as clicking on the down arrow and choosing “Time Drive” from the options.  After you change the option, it is likely the page will refresh, and the main navigation menu will change.  (Though on some browsers, most notably Opera, you will need to click the “Switch” button.)

Now, instead of the utterly boring, “Overview” and “Tasklist” options, you should be presented with a slightly more exciting menu.  This includes the options to take a look at the “Roadmap” and more importantly, “Open a new Task anonymously.”

Step 3: Complain Loudly, Thoroughly and Convincingly

Once you are on the correct project page, you will be able to take a look at the project overview, browse the roadmap, or file your bug report.

This is where you need to complain.  Tell me exactly what you think of me, my creations, and my professionalism.  Rant about how Time Drive corrupted your carefully maintained comic book collection, or how LyX-Outline destroyed your thesis.  This information is important, it helps me to improve the programs.  And getting it off your chest might help you too.  Nothing is more soothing than a good rant.  Especially when the person on the other end really wants your input.

Squeaky wheels tend to greased.  Thus, consider this positing as my official permission to squeak.  But to be most effective, you need to make your noise in a place where it will get noticed.  For Time Drive and LyX-Outline, this happens to be at their respective project pages.

Time Drive 0.1.5: Incremental Changes

 | August 14, 2009 11:19 am

Lifehacker induced change in web traffic.  Looks like move to exponential decay.It’s been an interesting couple of days.  I was rather honored to see that Lifehacker did a short highlight of Time Drive, which I thought was pretty cool.  It’s always been one of my goals to have something featured in Lifehacker or Gizmodo, and now I’m going to have to scratch that off the list of goals.  But that’s okay, I’ve got other things to fill the void.  Like … how exactly does one get invited to present at TED?

On another note … while I knew that I would see some kind of traffic bump due to the article in Lifehacker, I wasn’t necessarily prepared for the magnitude.  In mathematics, there is this thing called a step function.  It’s where you move from one value to another more or less instantaneously.  It looks like a step, hence the name.  Sure, It may not actually exist, since even very dramatic shifts still have a non vertical slope; but even so, the change in my traffic might as well be a step-function.  Between yesterday and today, I’ve had more visits to this site than I’ve had in much of the rest of the year combined.  I think that’s kind of cool, though it probably won’t last.

(This might be a good time to say that I am actually rather proud of my “lackluster” web traffic.  Though it might not necessarily be that impressive, it is, nevertheless, mine. I’ve worked hard for it, and I revel in the fact that some 40 to 50 people each day find the unorganized garbage of my mind intoxicating.  Some of them even come back!)

But as interesting as that might be, traffic stats is probably not why you're here.  Good thing, since I’ve got announcements.

Show me more... »

Backup for Linux, Done Right - Part 2: Time Drive 0.1

 | August 7, 2009 1:39 pm

Time-Drive-Icon[11]In part 1 of this article, I shared a few of the frustrations and reasons why I decided to write my own backup utility rather than submit to the tyranny of currently available solutions.  While some might find those ruminations interesting, the vast majority are probably far more interested in the end result.  There is a reason why “Get to the point” is one of the most important sentences in the English language.

Here’s the short version: After becoming tremendously frustrated by the state of backup on Linux, I decided to take matters into my own hands and create my own tool.

And though I only want a few things, I want that tool to do each very well.  First, I’m looking for a solution that can incrementally backup over the network and let me restore a file from an existing snapshot.  Second, those snapshots should be compressed, encrypted and secure.  Third, it should be easy to browse old backups for existing files and restoration should be a one-click affair.  Fourth, I want a backup system that can protect me from disaster, carelessness and pathological stupidity.

Show me more... »

Backup for Linux, Done Right- Part 1: A Mini Melodrama

 | 12:58 am

Time Drive

It is a terrible thing to realize that you are stuck in a rut.  Being in a rut effectively means that you’ve stopped advancing and life has evolved to monotony.  No one likes to be around people in ruts, but it’s even worse to discover that you are personally trapped in one.  And, most unfortunately, I am in a rut.

Don’t believe me?  Take a look at the home page of this blog.  You will likely notice that a full six of the ten most recent posts have dealt with one subject: backing up your computer.  That’s pretty conclusive evidence of a rut.

Now, backing up your computer is a very important thing to do; you should do it regularly and have a plan.  But … well … it’s boring.  Talking, thinking and writing about nothing but backup is dull.  As one of the doctors I work with likes to say, “That isn’t sexy.  If I’m going to spend any time with it – women, food, wine; it doesn’t matter – it should be sexy.”

He’s got a valid point, backup is not “sexy” and I’d like to write about things that are, at least for a while.  This, therefore, will be my last post on backups, archives, or servers for the relatively foreseeable future (technology is just too cool to lay it aside for too long).  But before doing that, I want summarize where I ended up in my quest for the ultimate backup system.

Backup on Mac is taken care of, I use Time Machine to a Samba share.  More adventurous persons than I might even say that this arrangement approaches sexy.  It’s convenient, fast, and robust.  It even covers disaster recovery.

Backup on Windows is also covered.  The built-in file backup is easy to use and works well.  Moreover, setting up a disaster recovery system is relatively painless.

But the third major operating system, Linux, is a bit of the odd-man out.  Certainly, you can find some excellent backup systems, Back In Time is one such example.  With a bit of work, you can even tweak it so that it is almost perfect.  But it’s the “almost perfect” and closely related cousins (“mostly useful” and “good enough”) that are the problem.  They have those stupid qualifiers – almost, mostly, enough – bolted on.

Any time you hear a qualifier, you can rest assured that you aren’t going to like what follows.  Consider the rather innocuous phrase, “that may be a problem.”   Here, the term “may,” makes an already bad situation much worse.  Instead of specifying some probability of problemhood, it all but guarantees it.  Positive qualifiers are just as bad.

As a result, it angers me that nearly every backup program available for Linux requires some kind of qualifier.  It shouldn't be like this.  Linux is a brilliant operating system in practically every way.  It is highly integrated, wonderfully modular and tremendously easy to extend.  So … after finding that nearly every backup utility in existence has failed to meet my needs, I found the situation intolerable and decided to do something about it.

I wrote my own.

Show me more... »