3 ms·
And by refusing to offer a Linux version of their backup tool, which would be a totally logical thing to do, given their apparent focus on tech-savvy customers
by Slartie 7y ago
And by refusing to offer a Linux version of their backup tool, which would be a totally logical thing to do, given their apparent focus on tech-savvy customers (just look at how and where they advertise). Tech-savvy people use Linux on their machines far more often than the average customer, So supporting it would be a no-brainer.
But people also tend to use Linux on machines with lots of disk space, like home servers. Wouldn't it be nice if those could backup their 30TB locally attached storage with the unlimited plan? Nope, not for Backblaze, which is why they shy away from Linux and try to get Linux users to buy their pay-per-Gigabyte plan (for which they miraculously are able to provide Linux support...).
- philjohn 7y agoIndeed - having a huge NAS that all of your home computers back up to, which then backs up to Backblaze would be an obvious workaround for buying multiple licenses ... although why go to that trouble when it's $6 a month per computer? That's one fancy coffee.