4 ms·

I wish these weren't all subscription-based, because this could work for the exact thing I want: I will pay $100 - $500 for an Arq Backup[1] clone on Linux, wi

by dsacco 9y ago

I wish these weren't all subscription-based, because this could work for the exact thing I want: I will pay $100 - $500 for an Arq Backup[1] clone on Linux, with the same UI polish as Arq for macOS or Windows, optional encryption, deduplication and supporting all the same backup locations, including: * AWS S3/Glacier * GCP Nearline/Coldline * Backblaze B2 * Dropbox * SFTP * NAS * Google Drive If you're absolutely going to force monthly subscription pricing down my throat, I guess I'll pay up to $20/month. I want this badly. I know about rclone, Duplicity, Duplicati, that awesome rsync/cron workflow you have, etc. I want Arq (or something just like it). Arq works flawlessly - it is absolutely superlative when it comes to backups on Windows and macOS. I use an Ubuntu workstation as my daily driver at home and I have a MacBook Pro. Through very careful configuration I have gradually made Ubuntu about as enjoyable to use as macOS (with the exception of 1Password, which has to run under Wine). But I don't want to use the command line, or handle an API myself, or keep track of cron. Duplicati was the closest thing to what I'm looking for, but it's cludgey and started not working for me recently. I know polished UI isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Linux. But if you're the kind of person who makes "Ask HN: What is your pain point?" posts or who is looking for a problem to solve, this is a burning problem I am willing to throw money at. EDIT: I'm adding a bunch of HN comments to demonstrate the interest I've seen for this.[2][3][4][5][6][7] ____________ 1. https://www.arqbackup.com/ https://www.arqbackup.com/ 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14403321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14403321 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11742226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11742226 4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9185632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9185632 5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5718015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5718015 6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13360604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13360604 7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13011339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13011339

hackerews 9y ago
Post it to https://www.demandrush.com https://www.demandrush.com! We're getting great feedback from folks needing products/services that don't yet fit into the initial structure we set up. Happy to help.
bertjk 9y ago
Do you really need it to support all of these different backends? I bet this would more likely come to exist if the authors knew they could focus on a subset of these.
- dsacco 9y ago
  It would be acceptable if it only existed for AWS and GCP at first. But ideally yes, it should aim to support a variety of them for freedom of choice and redundancy.
- manquer 9y ago
  As a developer if I knew you would need to support a ton of backends i will spend significant time building a abstraction layer which is backends agnostic and a framework to add backends easily. It would then be much easier to add new ones, even if I don't want to support them immediately Alternatively i would add support for one or two services directly, rewrite many times and come to the above model and add support slowly. Knowing you would need all of the backends would help immensely in the initial design

by dsacco 9y ago

hackerews 9y ago

Post it to https://www.demandrush.com https://www.demandrush.com! We're getting great feedback from folks needing products/services that don't yet fit into the initial structure we set up. Happy to help.

bertjk 9y ago

Do you really need it to support all of these different backends? I bet this would more likely come to exist if the authors knew they could focus on a subset of these.

dsacco 9y ago
It would be acceptable if it only existed for AWS and GCP at first. But ideally yes, it should aim to support a variety of them for freedom of choice and redundancy.
manquer 9y ago
As a developer if I knew you would need to support a ton of backends i will spend significant time building a abstraction layer which is backends agnostic and a framework to add backends easily. It would then be much easier to add new ones, even if I don't want to support them immediately Alternatively i would add support for one or two services directly, rewrite many times and come to the above model and add support slowly. Knowing you would need all of the backends would help immensely in the initial design