| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
mlopez
Welcome Newcomer
USA
5 Posts
Status: offline |
 Posted - 04/21/2010 : 5:36:35 PM
|
From a few posts I have seen elsewhere, it seems DPM 2010 will have agents for a number of non-Microsoft operating systems but not the Mac OS. The obvious question is why. The obvious answer may be because of the politics/religion/bad blood/whatever between Redmond and Cupertino. Which would be, of course, rather moronic.
Is there any hope reason might prevail before the final release of DPM 2010?
|
M. |
|
|
joe_elway
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
7397 Posts
Status: offline |
|
|
mlopez
Welcome Newcomer
USA
5 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 6:43:40 PM
|
Thanks. I should have stated more clearly what the posts say. here's one from from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Improves-Coverage-of-DPM-2010-With-Seagate-s-Evault-126565.shtml:
"With the growing popularity and widespread usage on non-Windows operating systems, Microsoft saw the need to somehow extend the compatibility of its DPM 2010. Up until now, this data-protection manager only provided backup solutions for server environments operating on the Windows OS. The purpose of this pact between Microsoft and Seagate's i365 Inc. is to use the Evault software as a mediator between Microsoft's DPM and servers using Linux, Unix, NetWare, IBM's iSeries, Oracle and Vmware. This will enable the protection and backup of data operating on any of these platforms without the need for major changes to the DPM 2010. Mac systems are the only ones that will remain unsupported."
|
M. |
 |
|
|
joe_elway
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
7397 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 04:59:56 AM
|
| You'll have to take it up with Seagate. That's an example of a 3rd party extension. Mac is a tiny minority of enterprise machines so they probably reckon the investment isn't worth it. I suspect their focus was on server backup - hence why *NIX, etc are supported. |
Aidan Finn
MCSE, MVP (Virtual Machine)
IT Blog: http://www.aidanfinn.com
My Photography: http://www.aidanfinnphoto.com/
Books: WS2012 Hyper-V Installation & Config Guide, MSFT Private Cloud Computing
Twitter: http://twitter.com/joe_elway |
|
|
|
mlopez
Welcome Newcomer
USA
5 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 1:27:43 PM
|
So you are suggesting that I, a Microsoft customer, try and help patch a hole in a 3rd party add-on which is itself a patch for lack of functionality in the original product. Brilliant. Sadly enough this is an old familiar story - leaving 3rd parties to fill in the gaps and blaming the percentage of a competitor's market share as an excuse to not invest in making the product a solution that works in the real world (I wonder how hard it is to write a Mac agent for DPM after all). In other words, this is about selling a product that works for Microsoft-only shops but cannot really compete without 3rd party add-ons so their vendors won't be too upset about their market share. The only problem with that is the customers, of course. All their time and resources spent on figuring out how to do backups do not seem to matter in this scenario. Great marketing strategy, isn't it?
|
M. |
|
|
|
netmarcos
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
USA
2219 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 1:39:30 PM
|
| Ummm. Isn't the current Mac OS, um, like, UNIX(BSD port, no?) at its heart? Yeah, I know; Apple went and screwed with it and put a shiny shell/UI on it, but it can't be that far removed from its ancestor...can it? |
Mark M. Webster
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. - Elbert Hubbard
 |
|
|
|
cj_berlin
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Germany
3964 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 1:54:17 PM
|
quote:
I wonder how hard it is to write a Mac agent for DPM after all
There's one very reliable way to find out. Try and you will see.
Different versions of Apple's OSes of the X generation aren't nearly as consistent from a 3rd party software vendor's point of view as are various Windows versions or UNIX distributions, and servers aren't any better than the client OSes. This adds to the QM overhead and probably makes it not worth it.
quote:
All their time and resources spent on figuring out how to do backups do not seem to matter in this scenario.
Why not just ask the OS vendor instead of blaming the competitor for not providing the missing functionality? They will probably tell you how great Time Machine is  ... and then blow away all your data after a software update. |
Evgenij Smirnov
|
Edited by - cj_berlin on 04/22/2010 1:55:16 PM |
|
|
|
mlopez
Welcome Newcomer
USA
5 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 2:07:53 PM
|
| Point taken in regards to asking Apple to fix Time Machine so it can write to Windows shared folders. Oh, wait! That still leaves me, the customer, asking vendors to fix their wares. Bottom line: DPM is still a french fry short of a Happy Meal. |
M. |
|
|
|
Pesos
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
USA
3506 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 04/27/2010 : 10:26:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mlopez
Point taken in regards to asking Apple to fix Time Machine so it can write to Windows shared folders. Oh, wait! That still leaves me, the customer, asking vendors to fix their wares. Bottom line: DPM is still a french fry short of a Happy Meal.
Hmm, if you truly think that DPM is flawed because it doesn't back up Macs then I think you misunderstand what DPM is meant to do. You might be happier looking into Retrospect... |
-Wes |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
DPM support for Mac OS - or not
