Talk:List of backup software

message: The entries are now going either going in in random order or people are incapable of putting them in Alphabetically.  Fabkins (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry Order 

message: Should there not be a section for online backup solutions like mozy.com ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.92.135 (talk • contribs) 
: See remote backup service. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-22 00:08Z
Proposed: Merge Managed backup providers into this page.  That page would make a good section on this page and then we can have one fewer page full of spam links. -- Austin Murphy 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge performed.  The text may need to be edited a bit more.  -- Austin Murphy 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Backup providers are "services" not "sofware" as such Managed_backup_providers is now merged and redirected to List_of_online_backup_services. --Hm2k (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online backup solutions 

message: It would be cool if we knew which operating systems the software was able to back up.  Maybe its time we make a Comparison of backup software --Krappie 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some rational organization would definitely be nice, but a separate page seems like overkill.  I don't think we even need to make this into a table, although that could possibly be useful.  Why not just put symbol tags like (WIN), (MAC), (LIN), (SOL), (NOV), etc. following the name and a little Legend somewhere.   Most products support either one platform (windows) or nearly everything so this could still end up being a total mess.  -- Austin Murphy 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I second this notion too. However, I suggest the comparison be added to the end of the list, until it's large enough to justify it's own article. Titles will include "Software Title", Windows, Mac, Unix-based, "Distributed as" (or license). Does anyone have any suggestions of common features to list in the table? --Hm2k (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison 

message: Which is correct?  (I can see where an entry would appear more than once, just not a case where it is clearly categorized and then declared uncategorized.)
=== For large networks of systems ===
* Bacula  GPL - a set of computer programs that permit you (or the system administrator) to manage backup, recovery, and verification of computer data across a network of computers of different kinds.
=== Uncategorized ===
* Bacula  GPL- Network based backup program.
--KevinCole 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the former.  fixed now. -- Austin Murphy 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacula appears twice 

message: * Bacula  GPL- Network based backup program.
</blockquote>
--KevinCole 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the former.  fixed now. -- Austin Murphy 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncategorized 

message: I think sections need to be improved.  What differentiates a "large network" from a "small network?"  Why is 'dump' not in 'for single machine?' --Karnesky 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the whole categorisation was irrelevant, and was unmaintainable. So I removed it, instead it could be a possible "feature" for the comparison table. --Hm2k (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: Microsoft Enterprise Data Protection is not listed as CDP, although it is mentioned in the first sentence of its article that it in fact is. Changing CDP status... Flegozoff (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict in CDP column 

message: Anyone mind if rsync.net is added to the Managed backup service providers list? I was going to add it but I didn't know the wiki naming convention: RsyncDotNet or Rsync_Net_(website) or ...?
Meonkeys 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about rsync.net? 

message: Genie Backup Manager has been removed many times from the article and then re-added. Why should it or should not be in this list? Jeltz talk 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is apparently notable enough for a WP article (and is backup software), I think it does belong in this list, but under proprietary software for small networks section and ONLY there.  Every other product is listed once, even if there are multiple editions and/or they technically fit under multiple headings (because they do both network and local backup, for example).  It befuddles me as to why multiple anonymous IPs think that Genie should be special.  If we make a comparison of backup software, we will be better able to address the categorization. --Karnesky 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genie Backup manager 

message: ... its merits / demerits aside? -thanks, Onceler 03:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any reason Ghost isn't on here? 

message: Odin  should appear in the list of Open Source backup software.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.118.5 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Odin? 

message: I have added HeatSoft Automatic Sync but I think someone deleted it, I find it very powerfull, and cost/effective.
I suggest to add it for small  networks, because it is used by known companies as: Lockhead Martin, Hyundai, Audi and even the US ARMY.
The link is: http://heatsoft.lugermedia.com/en_index.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.159.158 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mr Luger, please stop spamming links to your product all over Wikipedia.  Thanks. --Stephen 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HeatSoft Automatic Sync 

message: Quick background first. My name is Brian Gardner. I do currently work for Yosemite. Before that, I worked for EMC and Legato helping drive NetWorker development.
All I'd like to see here is some note about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeware (Yosemite's original product) and Yosemite Backup (Tapeware's new name). Tapeware has been around in some form since prior to 1990. Yosemite itself was founded in 1996 (but I need to verify that date). Yosemite Backup has 1000's of customers who have paid in excess of US$500 (not worth what it once was, I know) for the Master Server alone, so it does seem to deserve a place on this list.
I'd be happy to write it up, and add to other backup software content as well. But I don't want to get flamed by the community here because they think I'm just doing this to promote myself or my company. The kind of info I'm thinking of is provenance, such as is available on wikipedia for backupexec, platform coverage, etc.
So, folks, what's the best way to add Yosemite info and possibly add to NetWorker background as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.117.61 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yosemite Technologies 

message: I currently use this service and find it to be extremely good.  It's a new service taking the UK by storm.  I'd already added a total recall page to the Managed backup service providers section of this article before I noticed a requirement to discuss it's addition.  Is their any objection to it? Kashiabu (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contributions to wikipedia have only dealt with this single, commercial product.  Please disclose any conflicts of interest that you have. --Karnesky (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Recall

message: The consensus formed above is to link to articles about software.  External links to software aren't appropriate (read WP:EL for more information about external links) and links to articles about companies that make software don't belong in this article.  If a backup software program or package is notable enough to have its own article, then it should be linked here.  Otherwise, this list will become a linktrap.  Brilliant Pebble (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your read.  Red links are beneficial if they lead to stubs.  Purging a newly-added redlink for something that passes WP:N and WP:V is over zealous.  Red links that stick around for too long do need to be purged, lest we get too crufty.  External links may provide a reference for creating a stub.  If they're left as a comment, there is no gratification to spammers, etc., but they can aid editors. --Karnesky (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Red links by definition do not lead to stubs. -- 41.177.9.68 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to add to this article 

message: I've realized that some of the products on this page are not necessarily "Backup Software". Especially things like CDP solutions - given the amount of links, maybe grouping by "Large", "Small" and "Single" isn't enough, and in some cases not even appropriate. Maybe we should instead focus on certain functionality aspects? Although I fear that might open the flood gates for more discussions on whether or not a certain software package supports that feature or not...Quark999 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to relate to the categorisation issue mentioned above, and could be resolved by using a comparison table, also mentioned above. --Hm2k (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Backup Software" 

message: I did not add these to the list because they don't necessarily have Wikipedia pages yet:
* SmartBackup http://www.jam-software.com/smartbackup/
* Second Copy http://www.centered.com/
* Ultra Backup http://astase.com/ (French)
* Bounceback http://www.cmsproducts.com/products/backup_software/bounceback/default.html
* SyncBack http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/ (freeware)
* File Backup Watcher http://www.dswsoft.com/fbw.php
* Karen's Replicator (no restore) http://www.karenware.com/powertools/ptreplicator.asp
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SyncToy
* fwbackups - http://www.diffingo.com/oss/fwbackups  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.172.153 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.  --Hm2k (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks very complicated, perhaps someone could look at finding suitable references for CommVault's 'Simpana Backup and Recovery' software and add it? 82.70.173.139 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe someone is trying to confuse things here.  One should feel free to add any software to the lists which fit within them.  If they have their own promotional website for the software, with appropriate author, details, download and support information, then that would be your reference.  In other words, if it is a readily available piece of software, whether old or new, and is useable at this currrent point in time, it is available software, and deserves to be listed. Please remember that this is not rocket science. - KitchM (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list should only include notable products, ie those that meet WP:GNG. —me_and 09:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Looks like real live software to me.  It should be included. - KitchM (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NNC clearly indicates that entries can be included inside an article even if they aren't "notable enough" to have their very own Wikipedia article. Only WP:V and WP:RS apply to content within articles. Notability only applies to the creation of articles, not the content within them. Huggums537 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More backup solutions 

message: would be nice to see products delineated for backing up live machines (Symantec? ComVault?)--Billymac00 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backup while active (servers) 

message: Thought I'd point out Cobian Backup is listed under open source, although it does at least put "freeware" as the license. I don't want to mess around on the actual page, but somebody with a little more knowledge of wikipedia standards &c. might look into it?
:Cobian "Black Moon is Open Source, but NOT Amanita" -- So it's both... --Hm2k (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cobian Backup is under Open Source 

message: The table needs information on the requeriment of server software running on the server of storage.
It is important, becasue many users are given a network space for backup, witouth a backup service running, and it makes impossible to use a client-server architecture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.109.103 (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 is useful because the version listed in the table should be the version used for the basis of the comparison.  I agree with you on 2, but we have many points of comparison to add. --Karnesky (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table problems 

message: *http://www.cdrinfo.com/sections/reviews/specific.aspx?articleid=13587
*http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=ot3-downloads&vgnextoid=35c6069f356d3110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD
*http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=ot4-downloads&vgnextoid=0ed72c9e46914110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD
Telecine Guy 03:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Maxtor One Touch ? 

message: http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.55.86 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is SuperDuper? 

message: Many programs say they don't support certain platforms, but this may be misleading.  For example, Symantec's NetBackup server software runs on Unix or Windows, but the client software runs on Mac OS X.  This isn't reflected in the table and may be misleading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Wall (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platorm 

message: It would be useful to know what media each of these backup software can back up on to, for example whether they can do tape backup.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tape Backup 

message: Please, I had removed attix5 but someone roll back my change. Attix5 is not a GPL software they use this list for make free advertising and I don't udertstand why it's listed in gpl.
(Madshiva (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove Attix  

message: Claims that Create Synchronicity could theoretically be rewritten to run on Linux and Mac OS X is far different from the current version actually running on those platforms. Most programs could theoretically be rewritten to run on other platforms. It appears from the project page that Create Synchronicity does not, in fact, run on those platforms. I am therefore removing updating the table to remove Create Synchronicity from the Linux and Mac OS X columns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.100.201 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create Synchronicity 

message: I have tried them all and the following are my recommendations:
Windows 7 back-up
Oakster for Windows XP
Bounceback Express  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Member8321 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the current version is entitled "BounceBack Ultimate", and is found at . - KitchM (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back-up Software 

message: Should Bvckup be included? 24.87.50.111 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another software 

message: Currently, there are two Wikipedia comparison lists wikilinked in the 'See also' section: Comparison of file synchronization software; and Comparison of online backup services. In my view, a third and a fourth Wikipedia list might usefully be wikilinked in the 'See also' section: List of disk cloning software; and Comparison of disk cloning software. Here are my two reasons for adding the third and fourth wikilists. First, the current entries in the 'List of disk cloning software' complement the current entries in the 'List of backup software' (as do the current entries in the two lists currently included in the 'See also' section). Second, the 'List of disk cloning software'  (but, interestingly, not the 'Comparison of disk cloning software') includes Nero BackItUp, an example of commercial backup software for personal use that may come bundled with portable backup-drives, and arguably, therefore, should be included in the  'List of backup software'121.222.201.200 (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison lists currently wikilinked in the 'See also' section 

message: Dear editor, I would like to humbly request the addition of Automatic Backup to the list of Free Backup. Recently, this software made it to be within the first page of google when "Automatic Backup" search keywords. I would be an honor to be part of this great document of free backup. Best Regards and congratulations for such a incredible compilation of features and software. MarcoDFW (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not link to pages which are hosted inside someone's userspace, especially not copies of pages that have been speedily deleted 6 times from the main article space. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks MrOllie I'm new to wikipedia, so first and foremost sorry if I caused spamlike activity. Again accept my apologies, could you help me to list Automatic Backup within your list? or what steps do I need to follow to accomplish that. If Automatic Backup is not worthy to be listed you can say that no hard feelings here. Again I appreciate your help.MarcoDFW (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to move the page to a location that doesn't begin with 'User:MarcoDFW/' (the prefix indicates that it is in your userspace.), but I should warn you that with the sources that page is currently using it is very likely that the page will be deleted when you do that. You should spend some time finding better sources first, to ensure the article meets our inclusion guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks again, I'm having a hard time (very hard) to understand the term "Better Sources", I'm the one that learns watching others, for example I copied the Wiki Source code of an approved page, and modified. Of course the links have to be different, but he only has 2 external links/references to his own page (hosted at his University Servers but making not mention of that in the page) and the rest are references to regular WIKI pages. Probably that is the trick, have the website hosted in my university, which I can do that but that would be like cheating!! In the contrary Automatic Backup has been mentioned by 3d parties like Karim Salmi with an article "A simple guide to data backups" and that article was republished in many other pages as a good article. In few Hard to understand how Cobian without any good better sources managed to not get nomination in wiki and the list of backups.MarcoDFW (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read and try to understand the guideline on reliable sourcing that I linked you. The vitalcomputerrepair link you referenced is a self published blog. Those are specifically addressed by the guideline - they are not acceptable. Follow the guideline, not other articles you might find. They may not be in compliance with the guidelines. Wikipedia is a work in progress, someone will get to those articles eventually. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks now I'm starting to get some guidance, I really appreciate your comments; you are the first providing me tips to get better. If I may what is the main difference between Cobian Backup and  Automatic Backup so far I can't see that besides the links to blogs in pmy page that I will take out? also is there a check prof tool to check if a wiki article will be nominated? I mean before to do it and get slap in the wrist? I immensely grateful for your comments and help! MarcoDFW (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Hi MrOllie, I have searched sources and re-created my page now at Automatic Backup Copy, the page was again nominated for deletion, but it's under review as I contested the nomination. It's been there for a week or more so it looks like, I might have a change to stay in Wikipedia. Can I list my page in your List of backup software? you mentioned the page needs to be in a different place than  'User:XXXX/" so what do you say? Thanks in advance...MarcoDFW (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your article still does not have adequate sourcing, so I think it is very likely that it will be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back-up Software kindly requesting permission to stay here in this list 

message: Please correct the problem with the categorization of the software divisions.  If one is to use Free as a category, the opposite is Paid.  If one is to use Proprietary as a category, the other must be Open-Source. - KitchM (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Versus Proprietary Is In Error 

message: Main advantages: 
Every file is saved with its md5 sum as its name, which means:
1) continuing correctness of content can be verified
2) on incremental backup, it handles renames and moves efficiently.
https://code.google.com/p/boar/ 
It was a long time before I stumbled across it, because it's not in this list.
59.101.38.129 (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add BOAR 

message: Feeling good sofar. Deduplicates variable blocks down to 4k, based on natural breaks in filecontent. OS linux and (though unsupported) Windows. I am unpacking and loading all my backups (300GB since 1994 zip, arj, bkf, eRecovery, tib) to one opendedup/dsfs volume. Access is integrated in the file explorer. I notice oversight and accessability. I think a lot will be deduplicated and total space will be less. For fast daily backups I use rsync -backup-dir=../inc.$inc, which backs up based on date-stamps. Perhaps more comments later.
UnTrueOrUnSimplified (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing Opendedup as backup solution, combined with rsync for daily 

message: I am one of the authors of this paper were we compare the performance and system resources usage of Rsync, Rdiff-backup, Duplicity, Areca and Link-Backup. Should it be included in this wiki?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurhe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, yes, performance should be a comparison factor. But this page is just a list, maybe it should be a column in Comparison_of_backup_software or the two pages should be merged.--TheAnarcat (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the contents of the paper could be added to a column in that table so I just included the link in the External Links section. I agree that the two pages should be merged.--Aurhe (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a link to a performance comparison between five backup tools be included? 

message: I have proposed to merge this page into Comparison_of_backup_software, any reason why they should be separate?--TheAnarcat (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven years too late, I second this proposal. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also support merging. --DavidCary (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I take it in good faith that the restrictions which have been placed on this article have been put there to maintain the quality of the article and keep the junk out. A better approach would be to allow entries that don't have their very own Wikipedia articles, but require that they must be verifiable to be included in this article. Make a requirement that entries must come with a reliable source. This way the article can expand more while still maintaining the quality, but without the severe limitation of "only Wikipedia articles allowed". "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Notability guidelines are for the creation of articles, not for content within the articles. Verifiability and reliable sources are the appropriate guidelines for all content within articles including list entries. Also, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to "take ownership" of any article and create "special rules" for it even if they are the one who created it. We all have to follow the same rules on every article and once we post something, it no longer belongs to us, it belongs to the Wikipedia community. Huggums537 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvements. 

message: Information to be added or removed: I suggest adding Bacula Enterprise Edition to the proprietary section of the page even though the open source community edition called Bacula is already in the first table. These are 2 separate products from 2 separate organizations, the licensing and codebase are completely different. Think Wikipedia users will benefit from knowing the alternatives.
Andrei Iunisov (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bacula Enterprise proposed change

message: * Per WP:CSC, please provide either the Wikipedia page of Bacula Enterprise Edition or evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.
* When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from  to . Thank you!
Regards,  Spintendo  03:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 24-SEP-2019

message: UrBackup, GPLv3, C++,  Linux and Windows (client and server), macOS (client only) 77.185.80.28 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  UrBackup