Talk:List of backup software

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-06. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Insert non-formatted text here

Entry Order[edit]

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)[reply]

Online backup solutions[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge performed. The text may need to be edited a bit more. -- Austin Murphy 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

merge[edit]

Wikipedia is not a link repository, and that's all this page was. I have merged the salvageable parts of this article to Backup software. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-22 00:10Z

demerge[edit]

For some reason, backup software is a popular category to spam. Everyone and their brother has apparently written a backup software package and wants to register it with wikipedia. Since these edits are being done nearly daily and there is no sign of them stopping, this page is probably the best place for them. Other wikipages dealing with backup software should wikilink here instead of enumerating a list of packages themselves. This page could possibly prevent a plethora of uninteresting stub articles about insignificant backup software packages. -- Austin Murphy 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mass external links are entirely inappropriate for any wikipedia article. WP:NOT a web directory. Please do not add them again. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is entirely inappropriate to delete half the page indiscriminately. Along with the many external links, you deleted the associated list items. In your zeal to stamp out spam, you have decimated a fairly popular page that serves a useful purpose. Instead of dozens of near-useless wiki-pages that are bound to be created in its absence, this page serves as a neutral point of view location to list, categorize and briefly describe any backup software package or service that may be at least somewhat notable, but not deserving separate wikipages. You obviously did not spend much time evaluating your edit, since you left wikilinks to vanity/spam pages like Ahsay & Langmeier Backup.

Wikipedia has several articles about backup related topics and they freqently attract the attention of spammers. Linking to list of backup software at the bottom or those pages keeps those pages clean by giving the spammers an appropriate place to describe their product. Since it is centralized, those "spam" edits, can be quickly noticed by someone who follows the topic and folded into the structure. If you had taken a closer look, you would have also noticed that the links contain no text and the entries are sorted alphabetically. This page (including the links) is useful for someone researching backups and backup software. A full description of every backup software package does not belong in Wikipedia. The use of external links serves to extend the thread of inquiry beyond the limits of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in the topic or otherwise feel you can contribute constructively, I welcome you to help out with editing. Regardless, please refrain from indiscriminately deleting information. -- Austin Murphy 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making edits that are contested! Other software lists have external links only for red-linked pages. This encourages stubs to be written. If no stub is ever written, or if an article is deleted, the whole entry is removed from the list. This is effective SPAM control and list maintenance (note that WP:NOT says that WP is not for lists of external or internal links!). I've formatted the list as such (removing external links for blue-linked articles & removing entries which have had deleted articles). --Karnesky 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This process has cut the external links from 91 to 30. 30 is still a lot & many of those (particularly the managed backup service providers) will probably be removed eventually. However, I believe this is a fairly semi-objective criteria by which we can judge notability & by which we can remove spam but still encourage articles. --Karnesky 17:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, how about converting the links to be comments  after the redlinks? That would remove the advertising factor, but leave a source available for anybody willing to write the stubs. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral to this. On the one hand, I think it would help to immediately cleanup the merged backup service providers section (I don't think the other sections are that bad compared to other lists of software). However, actually having external links lowers the barrier for writing a new articles. It also helps with list maintenance--a majority of redlinks that don't have links next to them are for articles that have been deleted (usually AfDed as nn). This indicates they should be removed.

I won't revert if you comment out external links on this page, but neither do I want this to be conceived as a "precedent" to be applied to other pages where the linkspam may not be as big of a problem. --Karnesky 18:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't see it as a precedent, I just thought it a good compromise for here. I'll leave the links intact for those marked as GPL. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bacula appears twice[edit]

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[edit]

Bacula [1] 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[edit]

Bacula [2] GPL- Network based backup program.

--KevinCole 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the former. fixed now. -- Austin Murphy 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Conflict in CDP column[edit]

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)[reply]

External URLs as references?[edit]

Any reason external URLs (which are meant to be fairly temporary--to promote stubs to be started) are now in a reference section? --Karnesky 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like putting the external links in the reference section is just a way of bypassing WP:NOT and the link spam tag. I commented out those ref URLs so now the style is consistent. BTW, I like how you comment out the external links instead of deleting them. I've never thought of doing that before and now I'm commenting out too. I wonder if the spammers get less angry this way? (Requestion 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I just read User:GraemeL's suggestion up above about "converting the links to be comments  after the redlinks." Great idea, thanks. (Requestion 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The external links you left uncommented were to the free/open source products that remained for the last purge. They weren't a devious way around linkspam, as they had been explicitly permitted to begin with.

It used to be that I could assume that a redlink with no external link was a deleted article (typically due to lack of notability), so I'd have a robust method to cleanup the list. Now, I don't know how much value the reference links & the commented out links really serve. Instead of external link cruft, we accumulate redlink cruft. --Karnesky 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft, I know what you mean. It's not the best solution but what I've found on other software lists is that spammers tend to emulate. If they don't see any external links then they are less likely to add one. If they see only blue links then might also be less likely to disturb that pleasant sea of calm and add a red link. So periodically removing the red links might help ward off some of the spammers. Dealing with spammers is a lot like training monkeys, if you don't show them the syntax for adding an external link then they might never figure it out on their own, but then there is always the clever one. (Requestion 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What about rsync.net?[edit]

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)[reply]

Genie Backup manager[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any reason Ghost isn't on here?[edit]

... its merits / demerits aside? -thanks, Onceler 03:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Odin?[edit]

Odin [3] 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)[reply]

Redlink cleanup[edit]

A while ago I removed redlinks as a good measure of non-notability and spam links, but was reverted. Another editor has just performed the same task. Let's discuss the best way forward. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor you mentioned, I will just say I did the cleanup for the same reason, and I'm open to discussion on the issue. I believe some redlinks are actually good for the encyclopaedia, but there were really too many. I removed about 48 unlinked entries, leaving 41 linked entries. Lists such as these benefit from an occasional prune. If there were any notable entries, without articles, that I removed, perhaps editors would like to write the articles if they are to be re-linked. This is after all a list of encyclopaedia articles, not a list of software. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rved Stephen's purge (which was done in parts & started at the top of the list (that happens to be free software with no financial incentive for linkspam & included potentially notable software like rsnapshot and rdiff-backup).

The most problematic section has been the commercial managed backup providers, as that section had been a major target for linkspam. Stephen's edits never got that far. Perhaps we can remove ALL red links from that section & restore some of those in the software sections? The managed backup section is alone the reason that there were more redlinks than blue links.

In the past, we've removed entries for deleted articles and also any external link spam. To minimize the number of red links, we took off the ones that had been there the longest (something like over a year or maybe only six months).

I still believe there is value in keeping SOME red links to encourage stubs, but haven't started any stubs from this list in a while myself.

--Karnesky 04:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your memory is better than mine, I did only start on the first section --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are there any potentially notable free solutions that don't have articles. I agree with your rationale, but now a year later wouldn't most of the obvious blanks have been filled in? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "a year later?"

I think DIBS is notable--the article was recently deleted as an advertisement (not for notability reasons). It is in many *nix distros, has been featured in independently written articles.
I still think rdiff-backup & rsnapshot are notable, but they've been redlinks for quite some time.
I don't personally know much about SystemImager, but it seems to have independent press.
I don't personally know much about BackupNinja, but it seems to be in Debian & have several users there.

--Karnesky 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "something like over a year or maybe only six months", I assumed that was a few (six) months ago and they are still redlinks. I'll take your superior knowledge and see if maybe some of those you list are in other articles, eg. Maybe BackupNinja is mentioned in Debian or such like... --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 08:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rdiff-backup is mentioned in the rsync article. I am surprised it doesn't have an own article yet considering how well-known it is. It is even included in the core Ubuntu distribution (i.e. not universe) [4]. I took the liberty of re-adding it to the article after seeing the number of Google hits [5]. Jeltz talk 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up again. --Hm2k (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see this article is still attracting redlink spam. A reminder to newer editors that this article only lists notable entries with their own articles. Please don't add or restore entries without articles - they will be removed. Greenman (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The odd part is that there isn't a consensus to not have redlinks here or anywhere. I refer to the comment above about pruning every now and again when it becomes excessive but that is standard process, we even have a template warning on it. But one version of software is not going to end the world. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HeatSoft Automatic Sync[edit]

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)[reply]

Dear Mr Luger, please stop spamming links to your product all over Wikipedia. Thanks. --Step hen 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemite Technologies[edit]

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)[reply]

Total Recall[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What to add to this article[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Red links by definition do not lead to stubs. -- 41.177.9.68 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good starting point for a discussion, and I kind of agree with the view of "if there's no article on the software itself, it's not worth linking". *However*, unless the whole article follows this principle, I have an issue with my BakBone link being removed. First of all, BakBone more or less only produces NetVault, which is mentioned in the company article, but secondly, almost all of the links *already* point to software companies. Examples are "CommVault Systems", "Computer Associates", "SonicWall", "UltraBac Software", and "Unitrends". That's more than a third of the links in that section. So until someone can come up with a reason why *those* links are valid and fixes the article accordingly, I'm going to put BakBone back in there - and once I've got time, I'll write an article on the product. It's certainly more valid than a link to a Wiki article that doesn't even exist to a company (InMage Systems), and while I'd be hoping to provide full articles for all the links mentioned, I'd rather have company links than no information at all for the time being.Quark999 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Jan 10: Western Digital Smartware should be put on Wikipedia to compare to other software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.154.48 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Backup Software"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Backup while active (servers)[edit]

would be nice to see products delineated for backing up live machines (Symantec? ComVault?)--Billymac00 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cobian Backup is under Open Source[edit]

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)[reply]

Cobian 11 is NOT OPEN SOURCE, in fact the author license is Luis Cobian and he is now selling the source code. --98.206.129.63 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table problems[edit]

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)[reply]

1) The version column is useless. The projects can think up any version they like, so you can't look at them and decide what to use based on that. Version numbers are only interesting to people who already use something. 2) Some of the software that is listed has important drawbacks that should be listed here (only backs up databases, needs to run in part on Unix) because those are important for a comparison. 82.139.87.10 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where is Maxtor One Touch ?[edit]

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)

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 edit this page 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)[reply]

Where is SuperDuper?[edit]

http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.55.86 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 edit this page 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)[reply]

Platorm[edit]

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[6]. 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)[reply]

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 edit this page 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)[reply]

Shouldn't this article distinguish between server platforms and client platforms? I just invested a bunch of time in BackupPC because this article says it supports windows, only to find that is client-only support and doesn't actually run on Windows. And since BackupPC is a server based system (doesn't require client software), it makes it all the more misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.51.203 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoodSync[edit]

hello, I am the marketing manager for Siber Systems makers of GoodSync. Would it be possible to add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoodSync on this page as it is definitely a backup software? Sibersystems (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Hm2k (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomp chomp. Seems to me that coming to an article talk page and making a request for an edit is exactly the correct thing to do; instead you (a) tell him to fix it himself, and then (b) tell him he's got a conflict of interest if he does so. Correct answer is either "why, yes, that would be a good addition, thank you for suggesting it", or "sorry, but it would be inappropriate" for some reason. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the point, he can edit, but it's subject to a possibly COI, I think it's better explained above though. --Hm2k (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss the point at all. {{uw-coi}} quotes from WP:COI, but leaves out the end of the section, which says Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment. Other than not including the tag, that's exactly what this user did. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jpgordon's assessment above. Sibersystems came here and asked about adding a wikilink to an existing article, and while I'd personally consider such an edit fairly non-controversial, discussing it on the talk page is exactly what WP:COI recommends. In reviewing the article in question, I don't see a problem with including a wikilink here as it does seem that it could be included in this article's tables. I'm also going to be bold and disable transclusion of the two talk page templates Hm2k posted above with {{tl}} as they don't seem appropriate here. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sibersystems as per the templates, be bold and add it, but be aware of a possible conflict of interest. Cheers. --Hm2k (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that adding a link would simply result in it being reverted. The question is, is GoodSync notable (see link for details) backup software? If it is, create an article on the topic, and this can then be added to the list. New articles are often challenged, so the notability criteria needs to be met. If you're concerned about the conflict of interest, post details and evidence of notability here and perhaps someone can assist. Greenman (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Backup[edit]

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)[reply]

Please remove Attix[edit]

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))[reply]

Create Synchronicity[edit]

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)[reply]

Acronis CDP[edit]

I did a typo on the comment section for Acronis.

Should have read "Acronis does NOT do CDP for filesystem. They do near-CDP for Exchange only". So basically no CDP by Acronis. They even have a little FAQ that defends their position.

Fabkins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I added a reference that says it DOES support CDP. I even added a quote. But I am willing to see that FAQ. Fleet Command (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found an FAQ. It is here: http://www.acronis.eu/homecomputing/products/trueimage/#q3. It says:

Protection: Acronis Nonstop Backup provides continuous data protection, allowing recovery of your PC to any point in time.

So, it seems Acronis DOES support CDP. Now, if you please provide us with a source for your assertion, we'll be very grateful. Fleet Command (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm somehwhat confused. I got this URL which tries to explain what CDP is but goes onto say what Acronis Live does instead: http://www.acronis.com/resource/solutions/backup/2005/continuous-data-protection.html . But I grant you that link you provided seems to indicate they do. Fabkins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Found a press release that again indicates the support for CDP on their home edition. http://www.acronis.eu/pr/2009/09/15-05-22.html . This is later than my link so looks like they do now.

Fabkins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. I it think solves the situation. Your source's highly appreciated. I'll place it into the article. Fleet Command (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back-up Software[edit]

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)[reply]

I believe the current version is entitled "BounceBack Ultimate", and is found at [7]. - KitchM (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another software[edit]

Should Bvckup be included? 24.87.50.111 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison lists currently wikilinked in the 'See also' section[edit]

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)[reply]

Back-up Software kindly requesting permission to stay here in this list[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[8]" 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Free Versus Proprietary Is In Error[edit]

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)[reply]

Please add BOAR[edit]

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)[reply]

Testing Opendedup as backup solution, combined with rsync for daily[edit]

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)[reply]

Should a link to a performance comparison between five backup tools be included?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

Seven years too late, I second this proposal. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also support merging. --DavidCary (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvements.[edit]

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)[reply]

Bacula Enterprise proposed change[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

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)[reply]

Reply 24-SEP-2019[edit]

Unable to implement

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 {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!

Regards, Spintendo 03:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UrBackup[edit]

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