Anyone tried installing on a 64bit EFI system yet? I recently purchased a
new computer with Windows 8 installed. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into the purchase other than the thought that I should at least try Windows
8 before knocking it myself.

Of course, I absolutely loathed the experience, and I decided there's nothing on it that I really needed. So, I decided to give Debian a try, since I
hadn't run it in years. I very quickly found out that it did not have the standard BIOS, but EFI instead (I guess all 64bit systems have it? I dunno).

I had read a little bit about EFI on Slashdot, as well as SecureBoot. I
knew Ubuntu had been working on keys for SecureBoot; I don't know about
Debian. I had trouble getting Debian to install early on, so I decided to try Ubuntu 12.04LTS, which was what I had before. Ubuntu decided a short while back to ditch limiting their ISO's to under 700MB for compact discs, so a CD install was out for their standard install. I tried a USB install, but for some reason I had a little trouble with that at first. In the end, I think 12.04 didn't have a proper video driver for my system. I wound up playing
it safe by burning a network install ISO to CD, which booted fantastically,
and I started off by installing a minimal system to ensure a good boot before spending the time installing everything else from the network.

It was a rather frustrating experience, but in the end I didn't have to change anything in the EFI firmware other than the boot sequence. If anyone ends up with this system and wants to maintain dual boot, don't enable CSM... it's basically BIOS, and Linux will not partition for EFI, which expects a special boot partition. Luckily I read about all this before trying to goof around with that. Otherwise, if you don't need/want Windows 8 at all, CSM might be
a good option, and could save some headache if you want to do a "standard" install.

Anyhow, anyone else have any experience with Linux EFI installs? Perhaps my experience was just an example of the three P's?


--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Sovereign State BBS

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to All on Wed Apr 09 2014 10:00 pm

Anyhow, anyone else have any experience with Linux EFI installs? Perhaps my experience was just an example of the three P's?

Check the BIOS, there may be an option to toggle between legacy boot and EFI. All of my recent Dells (XPS 13/14/15, Latitude E7240/E7440, and the
Optiplex 9020 desktop) have that option.

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

Poindexter Fortran wrote to Dreamer <=-

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to All on Wed Apr 09 2014 10:00 pm

Anyhow, anyone else have any experience with Linux EFI installs? Perhaps my experience was just an example of the three P's?

Check the BIOS, there may be an option to toggle between legacy boot
and EFI. All of my recent Dells (XPS 13/14/15, Latitude E7240/E7440,
and the Optiplex 9020 desktop) have that option.

True, but I wasn't talking about a BIOS install. I could have done a legacy install, but I wanted to keep Windows 8, which meant keeping the GPT partition layout instead of a DOS layout, which means no standard install.

Only reason I'm keeping Win8 is...well, you never know when something could come in handy down the road, and why trash something that expensive? :P


--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Sovereign State BBS

Hello Dreamer,

On 10 Apr 14 11:26, Dreamer wrote to Poindexter Fortran:

Anyhow, anyone else have any experience with Linux EFI installs?
Perhaps my experience was just an example of the three P's?

Check the BIOS, there may be an option to toggle between legacy
boot and EFI. All of my recent Dells (XPS 13/14/15, Latitude
E7240/E7440, and the Optiplex 9020 desktop) have that option.

True, but I wasn't talking about a BIOS install. I could have done a legacy install, but I wanted to keep Windows 8, which meant keeping
the GPT partition layout instead of a DOS layout, which means no
standard install.

Only reason I'm keeping Win8 is...well, you never know when something could come in handy down the road, and why trash something that
expensive? :P

The last time I did a dual boot I just chose to remove the 100mb Windows boot partition and use grub instead. Installing grub immediately saw I had a Windows
partition and added it to the configuration file so I had a choice to boot into
Linux or Windows at bootup.

I don't really remember doing anything differently. You just either have to completely remove the Windows boot partition and use a Linux bootloader (new partition), or jump through a bunch of hoops in order to use the Windows boot partition - which obviously I didn't care to do.

Then when I wanted to remove the Linux partition from my machine, I had to remove the boot partition which contained grub and the Linux partition with gparted. After that, I simply put the Asus recovery CD in and chose an option to fix the Windows boot partition. It added it right back in and everything was
back to normal.

Not sure if it makes a difference or not, but my experience was with Windows 7 though. I've never touched Win8 on my machines here after trying it (and disliking it) on other people's machines. But it is 64bit Windows 7 on pretty new hardware (i5), so I don't think they've changed anything recently.. have they?

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
* Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (723:1/701)
þ Synchronet þ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to All on Wed Apr 09 2014 22:00:00

Anyone tried installing on a 64bit EFI system yet? I recently purchased a new computer with Windows 8 installed. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into the purchase other than the thought that I should at least try Windows 8 before knocking it myself.

I tried a little, but gave up and used an external USB drive (1TB) and am booting off that for Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. I already had it setup on another machine and just moved the drive over. This way I didn't have to mess with the EFI or Windows8 (which I can still boot via boot menu and F8 to force it to EFI partition). Just makes it a little slower on startup mostly.





---
þ Synchronet þ fatcats bbs - fatcatsbbs.com

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to Poindexter Fortran on Thu Apr 10 2014 11:26 am

Poindexter Fortran wrote to Dreamer <=-

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to All on Wed Apr 09 2014 10:00 pm

Anyhow, anyone else have any experience with Linux EFI installs? Perhaps my experience was just an example of the three P's?

Check the BIOS, there may be an option to toggle between legacy boot and EFI. All of my recent Dells (XPS 13/14/15, Latitude E7240/E7440, and the Optiplex 9020 desktop) have that option.

True, but I wasn't talking about a BIOS install. I could have done a
legacy install, but I wanted to keep Windows 8, which meant keeping the GPT partition layout instead of a DOS layout, which means no standard install.

Only reason I'm keeping Win8 is...well, you never know when something could come in handy down the road, and why trash something that expensive? :P

Windows 8 includes Hyper-V, so you might be better off running Linux in a VM rather than dual-booting. That's what I'm doing (with Windows 8.1 64-bit) to run a 32-bit version of Windows 7 (in a VM) - works great.

digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #34:
The irc.synchro.net network has more servers than users.
Norco, CA WX: 73.8øF, 47.0% humidity, 13 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Digital Man to Dreamer on Wed Apr 16 2014 15:56:15

Windows 8 includes Hyper-V, so you might be better off running Linux in
a VM rather than dual-booting. That's what I'm doing (with Windows 8.1 64-bit) to run a 32-bit version of Windows 7 (in a VM) - works great.

How do you think Hyper-V compares to something like VirtualBox? I've used Hyper-V at work, and it seems decent, but I'm a bit surprised to hear that Microsoft has included something in Windows 8 that allows people to run a competing operating system in a virtual machine. I remember when Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix; from what I remember, Microsoft changed Virtual PC to only be able to run other versions of Windows (rather than any OS).

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Windows 8 includes Hyper-V, so you might be better off running Linux in
a VM rather than dual-booting. That's what I'm doing (with Windows 8.1 64-bit) to run a 32-bit version of Windows 7 (in a VM) - works great.

Ya know, I wanted to try Hyper-V... but it turns out that this
particular flavor of Windows 8.1 doesn't include it. It's confusing,
because when I googled for "Windows 8.1 Hyper-V", one of the first
links returned is to a Microsoft page about Hyper-V on Windows 8.1,
and how to enable it. Nothing about "Home Edition" or "Windows 8.1
Lite" or "our crippled version that you need to pay to uncripple"... lol

For whatever reason, this computer did not ship with Hyper-V, and I'm
not paying MS any more than what they got off me in the price on this
system.

Anyhow, turns out this computer comes with a newer video and sound
system... the drivers aren't polished enough yet, so I'm stuck running
in a VM. I'm using VirtualBox.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Sovereign State BBS

Nightfox wrote to Digital Man <=-

How do you think Hyper-V compares to something like VirtualBox? I've
used Hyper-V at work, and it seems decent, but I'm a bit surprised to
hear that Microsoft has included something in Windows 8 that allows
people to run a competing operating system in a virtual machine. I remember when Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix; from what I remember, Microsoft changed Virtual PC to only be able to run other versions of Windows (rather than any OS).

When did they do that? I remember trying the free version for quite a
while for various things, including Linux.

Granted, Virtual PC sucked for running Linux, but then again I always
thought it sucked period. It'd do the job, but nowhere near as
efficiently as others.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Sovereign State BBS

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to Nightfox on Thu Apr 17 2014 22:30:00

How do you think Hyper-V compares to something like VirtualBox?
I've used Hyper-V at work, and it seems decent, but I'm a bit
surprised to hear that Microsoft has included something in Windows 8
that allows people to run a competing operating system in a virtual
machine. I remember when Microsoft bought Virtual PC from
Connectix; from what I remember, Microsoft changed Virtual PC to
only be able to run other versions of Windows (rather than any OS).

When did they do that? I remember trying the free version for quite a while for various things, including Linux.

I remember them doing that about 8-10 years ago maybe? Things might have changed since then.. I think I've seen a Virtual PC setup with Linux more recently, but I was pretty sure I remember Microsoft buying Virtual PC and using it for some virtualization technology in Windows to run other versions of Windows.. Microsoft's Hyper-V is able to run Linux fairly well though (we use that at work).

Granted, Virtual PC sucked for running Linux, but then again I always thought it sucked period. It'd do the job, but nowhere near as efficiently as others.

I figured that was due to Microsoft's influence.. Naturally they wouldn't want to let people run other operating systems, lest they lose customers to Linux or another OS.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Nightfox to Digital Man on Wed Apr 16 2014 08:28 pm

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Digital Man to Dreamer on Wed Apr 16 2014 15:56:15

Windows 8 includes Hyper-V, so you might be better off running Linux
in a VM rather than dual-booting. That's what I'm doing (with Windows 8.1 64-bit) to run a 32-bit version of Windows 7 (in a VM) - works great.

How do you think Hyper-V compares to something like VirtualBox?

I've never used VirtualBox, so I guess I can't give it a fair comparison.

I've used
Hyper-V at work, and it seems decent, but I'm a bit surprised to hear that Microsoft has included something in Windows 8 that allows people to run a competing operating system in a virtual machine. I remember when Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix; from what I remember, Microsoft changed Virtual PC to only be able to run other versions of Windows (rather than
any OS).

Yup, Linux is supported as a guest OS in Hyper-V (though I haven't tried it yet
myself):
http://technet.microsoft.com/library/dn531030.aspx

I've run Windows 7 (32-bit), Windows XP (32-bit), and tried (and failed) to run
Windows 2000 as guest OSes in Windows 8.1 Hyper-V. In fact, bbs.synchro.net still runs on Win7-32 (for 16-bit doors on Vertrauen).

digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #55:
Synchronet Terminal Server introduced SecureShell (SSH) support w/v3.14a (2006).
Norco, CA WX: 61.1øF, 72.0% humidity, 2 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Sat Apr 19 2014 23:49:33

I've never used VirtualBox, so I guess I can't give it a fair comparison.

I think I've mentioned this before, but VirtualBox, on multiple
Linux and 'Doze 64 systems that I've had the opportunity to use it on,
eats drives on a regular basis when anything abnormal happens. It's a
real pain in the butt, too, because you can't just restore to snapshot in
a lot of instances, either. I spoke to the devs about it; it's still not documented very clearly about that. I'd say use it at your own risk. I simply refuse to use it any more. Works wonderfully when it's working,
but if you don't have a good backup system for the VM's contents you can
get real frustrated really quick.


-- guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self


---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to Digital Man on Thu Apr 17 2014 22:24:00

Ya know, I wanted to try Hyper-V... but it turns out that this
particular flavor of Windows 8.1 doesn't include it. It's confusing, because when I googled for "Windows 8.1 Hyper-V", one of the first
links returned is to a Microsoft page about Hyper-V on Windows 8.1,
and how to enable it. Nothing about "Home Edition" or "Windows 8.1
Lite" or "our crippled version that you need to pay to uncripple"... lol

Don't know about it, but I know none of my systems has the hardware for Hyper-V to work, including my low-powered laptop with Windows 8.1 on it.
I looked on-line it said you have to go to the control panel, add/remove programs, then click on add windows features and add hyper-v.

---
þ Synchronet þ Roach Guts -- kingcoder.net

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Khelair to Digital Man on Sun Apr 20 2014 08:22 am

I think I've mentioned this before, but VirtualBox, on multiple
Linux and 'Doze 64 systems that I've had the opportunity to use it on, eats drives on a regular basis when anything abnormal happens. It's a

Care to elaborate on what causes VB to eat drives? I keep a snapshot of my BBS on a network drive, but I'd rather not have to restore my system in the near future, if it is in fact a big issue. Running WinXP Guest on Win7/x64 Host, also have Debian Wheezy Guest running.


---
þ Synchronet þ Shodan's Core - shodan.synchro.net:23 & :2323

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: KF5QEO to Dreamer on Tue Apr 22 2014 08:18 am

Ya know, I wanted to try Hyper-V... but it turns out that this
particular flavor of Windows 8.1 doesn't include it. It's confusing,
because when I googled for "Windows 8.1 Hyper-V", one of the first
links returned is to a Microsoft page about Hyper-V on Windows 8.1,
and how to enable it. Nothing about "Home Edition" or "Windows 8.1
Lite" or "our crippled version that you need to pay to uncripple"...

Don't know about it, but I know none of my systems has the hardware for Hyper-V to work, including my low-powered laptop with Windows 8.1 on it. I looked on-line it said you have to go to the control panel, add/remove programs, then click on add windows features and add hyper-v.

I'd guess that Hyper-V requires hardware assisted virtualization (enabled in BIOS), and I'd also wager that Hyper-V is not available on Home Retail/OEM. Probably need Pro or Ultra or whatever is above Home. I know Vista/7 doesn't offer Virtualization in their respective Home versions either.


---
þ Synchronet þ Shodan's Core - shodan.synchro.net:23 & :2323

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Android8675 to Khelair on Tue Apr 22 2014 10:15:02

Care to elaborate on what causes VB to eat drives? I keep a snapshot of my B on a network drive, but I'd rather not have to restore my system in the near future, if it is in fact a big issue. Running WinXP Guest on Win7/x64 Host, also have Debian Wheezy Guest running.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes VB to eat the
drives, honestly. I do know that when there are hard crashes, or
anything of the sort, the probability increases to near 100% when a VM
is active, though. I've been able to restore to a recent snapshot
_most_ of the times, but the last couple proved that that isn't a 100% failsafe, either. The time before last it was a newly installed
machine, no work had gone into configuring it yet, so I didn't really
worry about it, I just reinstalled. The time after that, though, it had
gone through heavy customization and a lot of custom installed software
and the like. I got really bent out of shape about that one, because I
didn't have my incremental backup working right on that machine yet at
the time. So I ended up getting onto the VirtualBox dev mailing lists,
and I was told flat out by them that the snapshots are not meant for
restoring corrupt drive or Virtual Machine images. After that I just
moved my crap to physical hardware and said eff it.
I would really suggest setting up some sort of incremental
backup at least nightly on those VMs, preferably storing backups on a
network drive or something geographically separated (off of the same
physical machine, of course). Next time I really need a virtualization solution, I'm pretty sure I'm just going to pirate VMWare. I had very,
very few problems with it when I was using it to run a ton of virtual
drives for the infrastructure that I worked at 7 years ago, and it was
reliable enough to pretty much ensure 100% uptime.


-- guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self


---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

Nightfox wrote to Dreamer <=-

When did they do that? I remember trying the free version for quite a while for various things, including Linux.

I remember them doing that about 8-10 years ago maybe? Things might
have changed since then.. I think I've seen a Virtual PC setup with
Linux more recently, but I was pretty sure I remember Microsoft buying Virtual PC and using it for some virtualization technology in Windows
to run other versions of Windows.. Microsoft's Hyper-V is able to run Linux fairly well though (we use that at work).

I do remember that part. I've heard XP mode and the like is a direct descendent of Virtual PC (akin to VirtualBox's seamless mode, probably
with even more direct undocumented hooks). However, I don't think
Microsoft ever intentionally hacked off Linux support... Linux was
simply not supported very well after Microsoft took it.

Hyper-V is a good demonstration of them conceding they made some
mistakes. :)

Granted, Virtual PC sucked for running Linux, but then again I always thought it sucked period. It'd do the job, but nowhere near as efficiently as others.

I figured that was due to Microsoft's influence.. Naturally they
wouldn't want to let people run other operating systems, lest they lose customers to Linux or another OS.

That was their thinking at the time, I'm sure. I don't think they
intended to not let people run a competing OS, but they were too
focused on supporting their own legacy programs going into the future,
and decided not to look at anything else.

I think with Hyper-V, they're demonstrating that they can see how much
an advantage it is to support more than just their own products. By
supporting running other OS's (and not just on an enterprise level),
people don't have to make a choice between the two, and you end up
with more systems running *your* OS than you would otherwise have.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Sovereign State BBS

KF5QEO wrote to Dreamer <=-

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to Digital Man on Thu Apr 17 2014 22:24:00

Ya know, I wanted to try Hyper-V... but it turns out that this
particular flavor of Windows 8.1 doesn't include it. It's confusing, because when I googled for "Windows 8.1 Hyper-V", one of the first
links returned is to a Microsoft page about Hyper-V on Windows 8.1,
and how to enable it. Nothing about "Home Edition" or "Windows 8.1
Lite" or "our crippled version that you need to pay to uncripple"... lol

Don't know about it, but I know none of my systems has the hardware
for Hyper-V to work, including my low-powered laptop with Windows 8.1
on it. I looked on-line it said you have to go to the control panel, add/remove programs, then click on add windows features and add
hyper-v.

*nod* and, there's a place where you can see whether you have the
compatible hardware. I forget where now, but the flag is set that I
*can* run it, but for some reason the option under Windows Features is
not there. Perhaps this has an early or less expensive install.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Sovereign State BBS

Khelair wrote to Android8675 <=-

Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Android8675 to Khelair on Tue Apr 22 2014 10:15:02

Care to elaborate on what causes VB to eat drives? I keep a snapshot of my B on a network drive, but I'd rather not have to restore my system in the near future, if it is in fact a big issue. Running WinXP Guest on Win7/x64 Host, also have Debian Wheezy Guest running.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes VB to eat
the drives, honestly. I do know that when there are hard crashes, or anything of the sort, the probability increases to near 100% when a VM
is active, though. I've been able to restore to a recent snapshot

Weird. I've had an occasional lockup/crash under VirtualBox...don't
remember what I was doing at the time, except that it was stuff that
would normally go off without a hitch on real hardware. Also notable
that I've never had a crash on a Linux host, all my crashes were on
Windows.

Anyways, I haven't had any recent virtual disk problems -- yet. I did
have one XP guest get trashed several years ago, and it was very
frustrating at the time.

In any case, nightly backups -- and possibly more frequent -- is
probably the best policy with virtualization. By its very nature,
anything virtualized is going to be less stable. What's working in
your current VM version isn't guaranteed to work as well in the next
version.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Sovereign State BBS

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to Nightfox on Thu Apr 24 2014 11:33:00

I figured that was due to Microsoft's influence.. Naturally they
wouldn't want to let people run other operating systems, lest they
lose customers to Linux or another OS.

That was their thinking at the time, I'm sure. I don't think they intended to not let people run a competing OS, but they were too
focused on supporting their own legacy programs going into the future,
and decided not to look at anything else.

I think with Hyper-V, they're demonstrating that they can see how much
an advantage it is to support more than just their own products. By supporting running other OS's (and not just on an enterprise level), people don't have to make a choice between the two, and you end up
with more systems running *your* OS than you would otherwise have.

That's true.. We use Hyper-V at work to manage several virtual machines, some with Windows and some with Linux. It seems to work fairly well.. Supporting competing operating systems can be a fine line to walk, though - IBM did that with OS/2, allowing it to run Windows software alongside OS/2 software. Since Windows was gaining popularity so fast though, many software developers decided to just make Windows versions of their software and not support OS/2. I suppose virtualization software like Hyper-V is a little different, but still similar in some ways.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Linux on EFI systems
By: Dreamer to Khelair on Thu Apr 24 2014 12:19:00

Weird. I've had an occasional lockup/crash under VirtualBox...don't remember what I was doing at the time, except that it was stuff that
would normally go off without a hitch on real hardware. Also notable
that I've never had a crash on a Linux host, all my crashes were on
Windows.

Yeah I wish I remembered exactly what was going on my last few
times. I've lost XP, OpenBSD, and Debian/Ubuntu Linux VMs all in my
time, though. I've started doing full bug reports on things now, trying
to make a little bit better of a searchable web portfolio for myself to
get back into IT work, but I wasn't doing all of that note taking back
when those last crashes happened. :P

Anyways, I haven't had any recent virtual disk problems -- yet. I did
have one XP guest get trashed several years ago, and it was very
frustrating at the time.

Yeah. It got me a few times before I was backing up regularly.
Then I thought the snapshots would take care of everything. Then I got
really pissed. Started using CrashPlan and custom tarballing scripts
and eventually rsync scripts modifiable for multiple environments. Then
my backup server went down for a couple of days and POOOF. Now I'm on
physical hardware again, which is good being as an indoor thunderstorm
took out my 2 64bit machines with lightning strikes within less than a
week of each other.

In any case, nightly backups -- and possibly more frequent -- is
probably the best policy with virtualization. By its very nature,
anything virtualized is going to be less stable. What's working in
your current VM version isn't guaranteed to work as well in the next version.

Absolutely. What environment is this one that you're working
with on the guest machine? If you'd like me to toss my rsync script for incremental backup your way I can certainly help you out with that. All
you have to do is set a few script variables manually and it handles the
rest once the locations (and keys, if using ssh to tunnel) are all set
up.


-- guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self


---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

Khelair wrote to Dreamer <=-

In any case, nightly backups -- and possibly more frequent -- is
probably the best policy with virtualization. By its very nature,
anything virtualized is going to be less stable. What's working in
your current VM version isn't guaranteed to work as well in the next version.

Absolutely. What environment is this one that you're working
with on the guest machine? If you'd like me to toss my rsync script
for incremental backup your way I can certainly help you out with that.
All you have to do is set a few script variables manually and it
handles the rest once the locations (and keys, if using ssh to tunnel)
are all set up.

At the moment I'm not doing anything special on my VM at home. It's
Ubuntu under a Win 8.1 host. I'm only backing it up a couple times a
month, which is fine for me. I've got an Ubuntu guest on a VPS
hosting my board, and it's backed up daily. My backup needs are taken
care of, but thanks.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Sovereign State BBS