how to back up data and impact on the environment

[Head_on_a_Stick]

@OP: you are too prolix, can you please be more succinct.

Consider a company using Ubuntu with lots of problems all the time on Ubuntu (laggy interface, etc). And the policy is to replace computers every 2 years for all employees or to discard it when an employee leaves. In terms of pure logic, it does sustain the statement that is a generalization. One can observe the fact that laggy software is considered as the fault of the hardware. One can see that backup of installation is not that simple and not built-in.

Is that a common occurrence? I would personally be surprised if companies really were replacing hardware because Ubuntu is too laggy.

I'm pretty sure that all professional sysadmins know how to backup, isn't that part of the job description?

Also, Ubuntu has a backup guide:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BackupYourSystem

this principle of more efficient new products does not apply to desktop computers

No but it does apply if the user is considering replacing an old x86 dinosaur with a modern, RISC-based hacker board, or suchlike — for example, Arduino boards draw *much* less power than a full desktop machine.

[debiman]

The grub configuration has certain hash numbers that are unique to the partition. It was long ago but I could not manage making the copied partition bootable. THis is more difficult if you copy from one computer and installed on another computer.

oh, i missed this earlier.
you are talking about UUIDs!
yes, making a cloned disk usable again often requires editing /etc/fstab and fixing UUIDs.
this is explicitely mentioned in many wikis and tutorials and an easy fix.

so, all in all, i am coming to the conclusion:
MacicPoulp has a way of expressing their winding thoughts and ideas, but they don't really know that much about Linux; many things would sound different, shorter probably, if they did a little more research first.

[MagicPoulp]

yes, making a cloned disk usable again often requires editing /etc/fstab and fixing UUIDs.
this is explicitely mentioned in many wikis and tutorials and an easy fix.

Cloning a partition and installing it on another computer by editing the UUIDs is not simple. I think it could be be much simpler and more accessible to more people. Just accept an opinion. It is not because I did not search on wikis and tutorials that I can have this opinion.

Conclusion:
I think people will buy more computers because it is not simple enough to set up a double boot or to backup. No one here agrees.

[MagicPoulp]

I regret I did not focus on this below from the start.

There are many companies that have a policy to systematically change the computers of employees every 2 or 3 years instead of waiting the computers to break. Think about it. What can be the reason? A quite obvious explanation: to avoid suddenly interrupting the work at an unexpected time if waiting for the computer to break, it is time consuming to set up a new computer, or data could not be backed up properly.

EDIT:
"Replacement implies throwing the old computer to the trash and recycling, not at all reusing the computer parts".

[MagicPoulp]

Is that a common occurrence? I would personally be surprised if companies really were replacing hardware because Ubuntu is too laggy.

I'm pretty sure that all professional sysadmins know how to backup, isn't that part of the job description?

It is a fact in my personal experience. A colleague got a new computer because his 2-year old computer was too slow due to misconfiguration on Ubuntu (drivers, Unity interface lag, slow start). The high occurrence can be seen if one considers many companies have that policy to replace computers after 2 or 3 years, and in the underlying reason that computers start to lag for software reasons.

Many companies do not have sysadmins managing backups for people's desk computers. At best they give a mounted folder.

EDIT:
Replacement implies throwing the old computer to the trash and recycling, not at all reusing the computer parts"

[Head_on_a_Stick]

many companies have that policy to replace computers after 2 or 3 years

Well that can only be a good thing, no?

I like cheap, reconditioned, business-class laptops

[MagicPoulp]

many companies have that policy to replace computers after 2 or 3 years

Well that can only be a good thing, no?

I like cheap, reconditioned, business-class laptops

I am not sure what you mean. Please clarify. Perhaps I was not precise enough. By replacing, I did not mean they reconfigure. Let me edit and add "Replacement implies throwing the old computer to the trash and recycling, not at all reusing the computer parts".

[CwF]

. Let me edit and add "Replacement implies throwing the old computer to the trash and recycling, not at all reusing the computer parts".

That does not happen.
The notion is on the edge of trolling.
You must work for Springfield Nuclear where they intentionally destroy goodness so no one else can benefit.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

I am not sure what you mean.

Some companies sell on their on hardware to be refurbished and re-sold, I am typing this on an X201 that I got cheap because of this

e.g: https://outlet.euro.dell.com/Online/Inv ... eSupport=1

[MagicPoulp]

. Let me edit and add "Replacement implies throwing the old computer to the trash and recycling, not at all reusing the computer parts".

That does not happen.
The notion is on the edge of trolling.
You must work for Springfield Nuclear where they intentionally destroy goodness so no one else can benefit.

[/quote]

That does not happen?

You cannot claim things in absolutes. It happens sometimes to an extent yet to be estimated. This is a problem of logic. You found the counter example of laptops that tend to be resell-able. But you did not prove that most computers in most companies are resold. Desktop computers are very heavy and require a cost of transportation, and a higher cost in a isolated small city.

No one knows for sure what happens in most companies. I only said they probably waste the working computers.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

Desktop computers are very heavy and require a cost of transportation, and a higher cost in a isolated small city.

In my country computers fall under the WEEE regulations[1] and so incur a significant cost of disposal. That being the case I would presume that recouping costs through re-sale would be pretty commonplace.

[1] http://www.hse.gov.uk/waste/waste-electrical.htm

[MagicPoulp]

Desktop computers are very heavy and require a cost of transportation, and a higher cost in a isolated small city.

In my country computers fall under the WEEE regulations[1] and so incur a significant cost of disposal. That being the case I would presume that recouping costs through re-sale would be pretty commonplace.

[1] http://www.hse.gov.uk/waste/waste-electrical.htm

For a company, or a private person, sending to recycling only costs for transportation. They do not care if the recycling process is complex and costly at the disposal facility. The "cost of disposal" by transporting for recycling is insignificant. They do it in bulk with lots of other things they recycle at the same time. This bulk way of sending to recycling is harder to do for reselling computers. The transportation of computers to resell should avoid damage. You cannot do it in bulk in a small company.

Always a small detail. Laptops can be resold so you claim it applies to all computers even heavy desktop computers.

You guys here always find small detail and claim it to assert the absolute truth or falseness of a generalized statement such as "reselling computers second-hand is common place". The problem does not lie in discussing the detail, but in the logic used. It is not simple to evaluate and prove the degree of truth of a general statement. One can build a personal opinion based on facts and personal experience. I asked in my company and they said they don't resell they send to recycling. This is quite common sense given the heaviness of a desktop computer.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

Well maybe you're right about old desktops being junked but there are *many* backup methods available for both Debian and Ubuntu so I really can't see what this thread is about.

[MagicPoulp]

Well maybe you're right about old desktops being junked but there are *many* backup methods available for both Debian and Ubuntu so I really can't see what this thread is about.

Fine. I just expressed my opinion that I think it is not user friendly enough to backup, even with existing tools. I gave the example of apt and systemd. Before those, it was already considered good enough with existing tools. Still, new tools made Linux more accessible.

It is not the first time I have an opinion against the stream. Previously I said that the debian installer has too many manual and intermediate steps. Previously, I said that mixing stable and testing is manageable though dangerous.

I think it is an interesting topic that the state of debian can actually affect the environment. If a system is used by millions of computers, it could be so. I am saddened that payable OSes still have a so large market share. Payable OS often have the pattern to make you slower so you buy more.

[MagicPoulp]

PErhaps there are tools to copy partitions that are well documented for Ubuntu. If you want to move it to another computer, you need to either take a long time to install debian to have grub or manually install grub using a live CD. Then you need to reconfigure the UUIDs. You need to use the bcd command hack on windows to make the windows partition point to the linux partition (or windows keeps overriding the priority). You need to use gparted to partition. And other details.

In my company they have separate computers for windows and linux in the same room, because the IT guys with a tool for remote installation can't support double boot that is too complex. Windows overriding the boot order makes things harrder since it is not well documented.

People will wonder how can backup be linked to double boot and installation. A backup has more value only if you can easily install it.

[ramack]

That story had a sheep last I heard it.

Maybe they ran out of sheep?