Wording: "Snapshot" or "Backup"?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/412c7/412c7c65d20285155f529c2cd0e5b65d66121701" alt=""
Hello folks, I am interested in your opinions about this. Looking into my foggy memory it seems that I somehow asked this question before. But I couldn't find out when and where. So my apologize if this is a duplicate. In my experience around BIT I would say that the term "Backup" is more appropriate for what we currently call "Snapshot". So I would like to change that. - For someone not knowing BIT (e.g. potential new users and translators) the term "Backup" is clearer. - Snapshot might be understood by some people as an image of the file system. - When writing about BIT (in Issues, Forums, etc) most of the time I do use the term "backup" out of the stomach without thinking about it. I do understand that "Snapshot" is kind of fancy and points to the timeline feature. But I would prefer to use the technical correct term "Backup" instead of a marketing term. What do you think? Regards, Christian
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d1f8c/d1f8c09a5e6a38372f5da65581d4d7513854d3e4" alt=""
Hi Christian, When I think about it, I think snapshot as a “bit-perfect copy” of a filesystem. Backup is just a fancy name for copying files with as much metadata as possible around them (permissions, ownership data, timestamps and whatnot). On the other hand, the repository which we keep this “versioned copies” is a backup. It just contains multiple backups inside. Maybe we can go “full Borg”, and call backup destinations as “repositories" and snapshots as “backups”, I don’t know, but changing the terminology will need adjustment to many of the jargon BIT is built upon. On the other hand, Borg calls itself as an “archiver”, but it’s an understatement and underselling of both BIT an Borg. :) Hope this helps, Cheers, Hakan
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba360/ba360e6c4f46985733b97a275b5920d06dcf9287" alt=""
I lean a little toward the change to "backup". As I work with the code I type "backup" then backspace to type "snapshot" to be consistent with the existing usage. I'm not sure that "snapshot" is really identifying it with any more clarity than the more common term, so it feels a little fussy. And, if anything, maybe "snapshot" implies something a little more particular, like a frozen-in-time capture of the filesystem, which is not what we are making. -------- Original Message -------- On 11/5/24 3:02 AM, <c.buhtz@posteo.jp> wrote:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d123f/d123fc9bd3b635253d39f13288bf8f0098d68904" alt=""
Thanks, that's a good question. Here's my thoughts: 1) Generally, we should have a good reason to change the wording. Even if it's currently not ideal, it creates a disturbance to change such words after many years in a software with a large user base. I would expect some users to ask the question if Back In Time has changed its behavior after the change in wording. 2) To me, a "snapshot" is associated with partial/incremental backups (in the sense that each "snapshot" is incomplete by itself). This might contribute to the usual confusion about the way we store hardlinks. This could be a good reason to change "snapshot" to "backup". 3) The word "backup" creates a stronger impression that each "backup" is a complete set of files from the source (which is true, because we use hardlinks). This would also be a good reason to change the wording. Hope I've made myself clear :) Michael On 05.11.2024 12:02, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d1f8c/d1f8c09a5e6a38372f5da65581d4d7513854d3e4" alt=""
Hi Christian, When I think about it, I think snapshot as a “bit-perfect copy” of a filesystem. Backup is just a fancy name for copying files with as much metadata as possible around them (permissions, ownership data, timestamps and whatnot). On the other hand, the repository which we keep this “versioned copies” is a backup. It just contains multiple backups inside. Maybe we can go “full Borg”, and call backup destinations as “repositories" and snapshots as “backups”, I don’t know, but changing the terminology will need adjustment to many of the jargon BIT is built upon. On the other hand, Borg calls itself as an “archiver”, but it’s an understatement and underselling of both BIT an Borg. :) Hope this helps, Cheers, Hakan
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba360/ba360e6c4f46985733b97a275b5920d06dcf9287" alt=""
I lean a little toward the change to "backup". As I work with the code I type "backup" then backspace to type "snapshot" to be consistent with the existing usage. I'm not sure that "snapshot" is really identifying it with any more clarity than the more common term, so it feels a little fussy. And, if anything, maybe "snapshot" implies something a little more particular, like a frozen-in-time capture of the filesystem, which is not what we are making. -------- Original Message -------- On 11/5/24 3:02 AM, <c.buhtz@posteo.jp> wrote:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d123f/d123fc9bd3b635253d39f13288bf8f0098d68904" alt=""
Thanks, that's a good question. Here's my thoughts: 1) Generally, we should have a good reason to change the wording. Even if it's currently not ideal, it creates a disturbance to change such words after many years in a software with a large user base. I would expect some users to ask the question if Back In Time has changed its behavior after the change in wording. 2) To me, a "snapshot" is associated with partial/incremental backups (in the sense that each "snapshot" is incomplete by itself). This might contribute to the usual confusion about the way we store hardlinks. This could be a good reason to change "snapshot" to "backup". 3) The word "backup" creates a stronger impression that each "backup" is a complete set of files from the source (which is true, because we use hardlinks). This would also be a good reason to change the wording. Hope I've made myself clear :) Michael On 05.11.2024 12:02, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
participants (4)
-
c.buhtz@posteo.jp
-
Derek
-
Hakan Bayındır
-
Michael Büker