37 stories

Machine Learning Captcha

2 Comments and 5 Shares
More likely: Click on all the pictures of people who appear disloyal to [name of company or government]
Read the whole story
19 hours ago
It's a trick. Don't do it!
Wilmington, NC, USA
Share this story
1 public comment
1 day ago
No pic of me kneeling in supplication to my blender?
Bend, Oregon

Polyamory Is Growing—And We Need To Get Serious About It

1 Comment

We need to talk about polyamory. It’s the biggest sexual revolution since the 1960s. It’s surprisingly common among Millennials and Gen Z. It’s often misunderstood and stigmatized by mainstream monogamist culture. Some people think polyamory is the best way to integrate sexual freedom, honesty, openness, and commitment. Others think it’s an existential threat to Western Civilization.

We should take existential risks seriously. Global thermonuclear war, genetically engineered bioweapons, and artificial general intelligence could exterminate our species. But whenever I tweet about polyamory, my conservative followers react as if polyamory is a fourth existential threat. They view monogamy as the foundation of Western Civilization. Any threat to monogamy is, they think, a threat to love, marriage, family, culture, reason, nation, and gene pool. Are they right?  

The Polyamory Revolution

More people than ever are pursuing polyamorous, open, or swinging relationships. With the growing number of polyamorous relationships, we need to get serious about analyzing the costs and benefits of polyamory—not just for individuals, but for families, cultures, and nations. 

Sex-positive activists often argue that sexual relationships are matters of individual choice, and nobody else’s business. Yet sexual relationships can impose good and bad side-effects (“positive and negative externalities”) on children, communities, economies, civilizations, and future generations. Mating markets matter. Sexual ethics matter. Reproductive choices matter. Families matter. That’s why we evolved instincts to stick our noses into other people’s sex lives, and why human sexuality has often been the most controversial domain of human politics and religion.

So what is polyamory and how does it work? 

Polyamorous or open relationships are usually based on “consensual non-monogamy“—the idea that relationships can be loving, committed, and serious, without being sexually exclusive. It’s a more libertarian approach to sexuality, in which people can negotiate custom relationships, like contracts between firms or treaties between countries, while still retaining some sexual sovereignty and freedom of mate choice. Polyamory takes freedom of association seriously—not just in social and political life, but in the sexual realm. If you can choose to have more than one child, more than one friend, and more than one work colleague, you should be free to choose more than one sexual partner.

Among Millennials and Gen Z, consensual non-monogamy often takes the form of polyamory, with people having multiple parallel relationships; among older people, it often takes the form of swinging among married couples. (In this essay, I’ll use “polyamory” and “poly” as umbrella terms for all kinds of consensual non-monogamy.)

Openness to polyamory is already common among younger American adults:

  • About 4 percent to 5 percent of all adults are currently in open or poly relationships;
  • About 20 percent have tried some kind of open or poly relationship at some point;
  • Among adults aged 18-44, 17 percent have had sex with someone else with the consent of their partner, up from 9 percent among adults aged 45-54;
  • About 28 percent of adults say it is not natural for human beings to be faithful to only one person;
  • About 29 percent of adults under 30 consider open relationships to be morally acceptable—compared to only 6 percent of adults over 65.

Polyamory is still a smallish subculture, but it is already much more common than being gay or lesbian. Americans think that about 24 percent of people are gay or lesbian, but the true percentage is closer to 2 percent. Thus, among America’s 83 million Millennials, 24 million are sympathetic to poly ideals, 17 million have tried poly, and 4 million are currently poly—compared to 3 million who are gay/lesbian. When I taught my university course on “Polyamory and Open Sexuality” in 2017, my undergrads were astonished that being poly was more common than being gay—even though most of them personally had more poly friends than gay friends. 

Why Polyamory Is Hard

Poly relationships can work very well for some people. I’ve been in a successful open relationship for five years, and we’re getting married next month. Poly people report relationship satisfaction as high as or higher than monogamous people, often with different partners fulfilling different needs. But poly relationships are hard for several reasons. 

Poly people have to learn to manage their sexual jealousy, by minimizing it and/or eroticizing it. Sexual jealousy has deep evolutionary roots, with clear adaptive functions in increasing paternity certainty, protecting pair bonds, and reducing STI transmission. Jealousy is instinctive and hard to manage. But lots of emotions that we learn to manage also have deep evolutionary roots. Kids learn to manage their anger, teens learn to manage their moodiness, and married people learn to manage their irritability, but many adults have never seriously tried to manage their jealousy.

Poly people also have to negotiate and nurture their custom relationships without having good role models, social norms, sexual scripts, or social support. Polyamory is almost invisible in mainstream media, and the few reality TV shows about polyamory play up the “poly drama” rather than exemplifying good relationship skills. Also, too many poly advocates do so much progressive virtue-signaling that they’re not seen as credible spokespeople by mainstream folks. Most doctors, therapists and mental health professionals are ignorant about poly, and many are biased against poly relationships, so aren’t much help to poly people seeking guidance.

Further, poly people need to manage trade-offs in time, energy, money, and mating effort among multiple partners, who are also trying to do the same with their own partners. Naïve polyamorists say “Love is infinite,” and the polyamory logo is a heart with an infinity symbol. However, true romance requires costly commitment-signals, so every concrete manifestation of love involves limited resources. Love may not be the zero-sum game that monogamists often imagine, but it still involves real costs, real trade-offs, and sometimes real heartbreak.

Finally, there’s the intense social disapproval of polyamory, which is heavily stigmatized—more stigmatized in some ways than any sex, race, class, religion, political attitude, or sexual orientation. Conservative and religious people are especially hostile to polyamory. Poly also lacks the legal status of being a protected minority, so poly people can be denied housing, jobs, and child custody just for being poly. The political status of polyamory is comparable to that of homosexuality before the 1969 Stonewall riots that launched the gay rights movement. 

Many people try open relationships without doing their research, and they often fail. Poly doesn’t have a civilizational support system yet. We’re not brought up to know how it could work. It’s tough to be gay in a straight world; it’s tough to be a sex-positive woman in a slut-shaming world; it’s tough to be polyamorous in a monogamist world. Imagine if your culture’s norm was polyamory, and you were trying to invent monogamy from scratch, without any of monogamy’s religious, legal, cultural, or media infrastructure. You would probably have a high failure rate too. 

Other poly people do their research, read blogs and books, find like-minded friends and mentors, join poly networks, and practice their relationship skills. They often find that poly relationships offer the best of both worlds—the long-term loving commitment of pair bonds, plus the excitement of sexual variety, the charm of recreational intimacy, and the power of social networking through threesomes.

In my academic research and popular science books, I’ve argued that a lot of human behavior is driven (unconsciously) by mating effort—the drive to show off our mental traits and moral virtues to attract sexual partners. These are costly signals, and we only bother to display them when they can yield mating payoffs. Monogamous exclusivity reduces those incentives. As mating effort gives way to parenting effort, traditional married couples often get lazy about their intellectual, social, and political lives. By contrast, open relationships incentivize people to stay healthy, fit, creative, and funny, because they’re always in the mating market.  

The Benefits of Monogamy

Pair bonds go back millions of years in mammals, and at least two million years in our lineage. However, cultural institutions of monogamy seem to have developed only since the rise of Holocene agriculture and urbanization in the last 10,000 years, and they became civilizationally central only in the last couple of thousand years, as in ancient Greece and Rome. 

Monogamous societies flourished. That’s no accident. It’s important to acknowledge that the only societies that have ever succeeded in becoming large-scale technological civilizations were the ones that adopted monogamous marriage as the gold standard for long-term pair bonds and family formation.

Of course, married people often had affairs, men visited sex workers, and elites often acted polygynous or polyamorous in secret, even as they promoted monogamy in public. But monogamy has, historically and normatively, been central to complex societies. So, is polyamory a serious threat to civilization?

Well, monogamy solved some specific problems that might not be as relevant anymore.

Monogamy increased paternity certainty—a man’s confidence that his kids are really his—thereby increasing paternal investment. If you know you’re the real dad, you’re likely to be a better dad. But with condoms, contraception, and paternity testing, this is less of a concern—at least at the rational level.

Monogamy reduced the spread of sexually transmitted infections that could undermine women’s fertility. However, STIs have become much less common over the last few centuries. STIs now are more easily avoided with vaccines, PReP, condoms, and safer sex, and are more treatable with medications. Poly people are generally very safety-conscious about STIs, and have infection rates no higher than monogamists.  

Maybe most importantly, monogamy reduced the ability of high-status males to monopolize women, and helped to equalize mating opportunities. This decreased violent competition among males. Jordan Peterson has been especially vocal about the sexual-egalitarian and violence-reduction benefits of monogamy. Many “Red Pill” guys in the Manosphere are terrified that polyamory will expand the sexual underclass of male incels, but they usually confuse polyamory with polygyny. Polygyny makes it harder for lower-mate-value men to find partners, but polyamory actually makes it easier, because these guys don’t have to be good enough to be a woman’s primary partner. Also, as Steven Pinker has shown, aggression rates have already dropped a hundredfold in the last thousand years, and the state has gotten better at deterring violence with surveillance, police, courts, and jails. Some of the more neurotic polyamorists enjoy maximizing the “poly drama” in their lives, but it rarely leads to spousal homicide. 

The Benefits of Marriage

Some of the benefits of monogamy (sexual exclusivity) are conflated with the benefits of marriage (socially validated, ritualized, long-term pair bonds), but the two served rather different civilizational functions. 

Marriage customs helped reinforce commitment in pair bonds so couples stayed together while raising kids. These “commitment devices” and “public displays of connection” included costly marriage ceremonies with vows, witnesses, and emotionally powerful traditions, marriage laws and contracts that made divorce difficult and costly, and pro-marriage propaganda throughout our civilization, with many high-status married role models and religious justifications.

It’s important not to confuse these marriage customs with monogamy itself. Many polyamorous people get married and raise kids. They can take advantage of all the commitment devices that help maintain long-term pair bonds, without buying into the sexual exclusivity. (My fiancée and I have been doing that during months of wedding planning.) Commitment doesn’t require exclusivity, and exclusivity doesn’t guarantee commitment. At least in principle, marriage isn’t restricted to monogamy, any more than it’s restricted to heterosexuality. (I’m not arguing here for “plural marriage” among multiple people, only for open marriage among pair-bonded couples; plural marriage raises a whole other set of legal, familial, and cultural complications.)

Monogamous marriages can be wonderful, and bring many benefits, but they can also be frustrating, boring, and fragile. They often become asexual, and many married people are no longer hot for their spouses. Monogamously married people can get lazy about their personal habits, career ambitions, and social networks. When “infidelity” is catastrophized as the deepest betrayal that can possibly befall a married couple, a single affair can blow them apart. The claim that “50 percent of marriages end in divorce” is overblown—the divorce rate is much lower among college-educated people who marry when they’re older than 24, who aren’t pregnant when they marry, who have decent jobs, and whose spouses are the same race and religion. Still, monogamous marriage has its problems, as every observant human has learned.

Open marriages can be more resilient and exciting. Interactions with “secondary partners” can put the spark back into the marriage bed. Polyamorous people have incentives to sustain their mate value—to stay more energetic, vivid, and attractive. Since polyamorists communicate more openly about their sexual fantasies, porn use, flirtations, and other partners, they learn through experience that their partner can feel desire for others, and it doesn’t necessarily threaten their family. 

Just as polyamory can learn a lot from monogamous marriage traditions about how to sustain long-term, pronatalist pair-bonds, monogamous marriages can learn a lot from poly relationships about communication, honesty, jealousy-management, and how to keep the sexual spark alive.

How to Avoid a New Culture War over Sexuality

I don’t know what percentage of Americans will adopt open relationships in the next twenty years, but it will almost certainly increase. To avoid a new “culture war” over sexuality, I think it’s important for conservatives and religious people to understand that polyamorous openness can be integrated with marital commitment, family values, and pronatalism. It’s not helpful when the Catholic League, for example, denounces the new American Psychological Association’s Consensual Non-Monogamy Task Force (which I’m on), as evidence that the APA is “having a mental breakdown.” Historically, married Christians have been prominent in the swinger community, and have found ways to integrate sexual variety, family values, and Christian spirituality.  

Monogamy and polyamory also have a common enemy: the impulsive, short-term, alcohol-fueled casual sex culture of bars, clubs, frat parties, and Tinder. It’s possible to make a compelling ethical case for monogamy. It’s also possible to make a compelling ethical case for polyamory. I don’t think it’s possible to make a compelling ethical case for a sexual culture centered around drunken hook-ups. (Casual sex can be great, but the current American culture around casual sex rarely partakes of that greatness.)

The trouble is, most poly people are on the far-Left politically, and are atheist or New Age spiritually. Many polyamorists see poly as part of a broader progressive movement to undermine religion, capitalism, patriarchy, and the gender binary. The Green polyamorists who catastrophize about global warming are often anti-natalist and anti-family. Given the stigma against poly, the poly people willing to appear on TV are often young, eccentric “poly activists,” rather than mature professionals who happen to be poly.  This makes open relationships look like some bizarre, unsustainable variety of Leftist virtue-signaling. But it’s a mistake to think that’s all it is, for three reasons.

For a start, most middle-aged polyamorists (especially swingers) are middle-class professionals, who are centrist or conservative. Many are religious. They offer an existence proof that sexual exclusivity is not required for long-term relationships, and that familial responsibility can co-exist with some degree of sexual freedom. 

Also, most marriages between gay men are open to some degree—they’re ‘monogamish’ (as Dan Savage says), not monogamous. If gay marriages can handle some openness, maybe straight marriages can too. 

Finally, research by Justin Lehmiller shows that conservative people have more sexual fantasies about threesomes and group sex than liberal people do—the desire for openness is there, but it isn’t acted on or shared with the partner. This creates secrecy, hypocrisy, and emotional distance in conservative marriages that could be resolved through a bit more openness. 

Polyamory is coming. We could continue to ignore it. We could continue confusing libertarian polyamory with oppressive patriarchal polygamy. We could continue conflating ethical non-monogamy with unethical hook-up culture. We could misconstrue poly as an existential threat to Western Civilization, as if it’s more dangerous as nuclear war or Artificial Intelligence. 

But maybe we should be smarter about how we handle polyamory. Polyamory, at best, offers a new ethical vision of sexual relationships that prioritizes radical honesty, sexual sovereignty, freedom of association, and social networking. Poly is, admittedly, an experiment. Polyamory would not have been possible before the invention of contraception, condoms, STI testing, the evolutionary psychology insights needed to manage sexual jealousy, and the Google Calendar app to manage dates. 

Polyamory Needs Your Guidance 

Here’s the thing: polyamory’s potential as a social experiment is being squandered by many current polyamorists—many of whom belong to the radical Left politically. Widespread, sustainable poly may not be possible without some wise and sympathetic guidance from conservatives, centrists, libertarians, Christians, and other good folks who may think, at first glance, that poly seems insane or evil.

Poly needs libertarians who can explore how freedom of choice, freedom of association, and the non-aggression principle can extend into the realm of sexual relationships. Poly needs “TradLife” pronatalists willing to find common ground with the communitarian child-rearing favored by many poly families. Poly needs Christian ethicists who can imagine a more romantic interpretation of “Love they neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22: 39). Poly needs centrists who recognize that poly relationships are powerful ways to build bridges across partisan divides. 

Polyamory is going mainstream, like it or not. You already have poly neighbors and coworkers, whether you know it or not. Many of your own kids are likely to end up in poly relationships. Many of you might end up in poly relationships, sooner or later. 

This won’t be a personal or national catastrophe. It won’t be an existential threat to Western Civilization. But if we don’t figure out how to integrate polyamory with our best traditions of commitment, marriage, parenting, and family values, there will be a culture war about sexuality that makes the 1960s look like the calm before a category 5 hurricane.


Geoffrey Miller is a psychology professor at the University of New Mexico. He is the author of The Mating Mind, Mating Intelligence, Spent, What Women Want, and Virtue Signaling. His research has focused on evolutionary psychology, mate choice, human sexuality, intelligence, consumer behavior, and Effective Altruism. His website is www.primalpoly.com; his Twitter is @primalpoly. 

Photo by Boxflip/Wikimedia Commons.

The post Polyamory Is Growing—And We Need To Get Serious About It appeared first on Quillette.

Read the whole story
14 days ago
Everybody's doing it, so you might want to figure out what it's all about.
Wilmington, NC, USA
Share this story

Small Software ISVs — Banding Together? What Do You Think?

1 Comment

Small Software ISVs — Banding Together? What Do You Think?

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the sustainability of small software ISVs in a world where our user audiences are continually distracted by very large batteries of marketing content. It feels like increasingly open source growth is no longer organic, and must be achieved the old fashioned way, which is often expensive.

Previously, I’ve discussed the idea of software coops with a few people. This is sort of like that, but different.

While I don’t use any of their music software, one idea that comes to mind is something like Plugin Alliance (https://www.plugin-alliance.com/). I don’t know how PA exactly works, but it’s clear it is multiple companies and one storefront, and association builds mutual benefit.

Another idea might be something like a video game publisher. They don’t make the games, but the joint label is a stamp of quality and association, and that brings benefits.

What if a bunch of software developers banded together to sell support and/or open-core offerings and got 100% of the revenue (minus upkeep costs, whatever we decide) of the software that they particularly sell, but somehow pooled marketing and website infrastructure costs?

The benefit is that the collective could ensure quality of what it decided to promote, and the larger brand stable could bring attention to smaller developers.

I’m interested in options other than the venture scaling path for elevating smaller software companies to where they can compete. As we all know, there are a companies that are nothing more than a grouping of simple projects, so we know *that* works, but why can’t we do the same and keep our independence?

Adoption not necessary, good ideas and good code highly necessary.

This may be crazy, but if you like this concept, email me, maybe? I’m not sure I’ll do this, or lead this, but it feels like a thought experiment that should be explored. michael AT michaeldehaan.net.

Problem domain would be limited to enterprise software (i.e. B2B), does not need to be infrastructure related at all.

Read the whole story
58 days ago
Isn't this what the Apache Software Foundation and Cloud Native Computing Foundation are?
Wilmington, NC, USA
Share this story

Four short links: 9 September 2019

1 Comment

Secure Android, Group Chats, Ethical Location Data, and Philosophy of Computer Science

  1. Secured Android Phone Spec — I want to build a secured phone that can be used as either a hardened comms device, or even as a daily driver. I have a decade of experience in practical applied operational security, and over 5 years of experience working on secured Android phones. This project is my last attempt to make a secured phone for everyone.
  2. China is Cashing In On Group Chats (A16Z) — interesting for the mechanisms to keep it manageable and free of buttheads: QR codes to join and capped group sizes; anonymous usernames (but WeChat knows who you are, for police purposes); no visible history before you joined, etc.
  3. Ten Years On, Foursquare Is Now Checking In To You (NY Mag) — But even if Crowley and Glueck have the best intentions, until there is federal oversight, they are a cork in a dam, accountable to themselves, investors, and one day, with a potential IPO looming, shareholders. This x1000.
  4. Philosophy of Computer Science — long and good. I love that it starts with "what is Computer Science?" and works up to AI and ethics through "do we compute with symbols or with their meanings?" and "copyright vs patents." I like his questions that CS is concerned with: What can be computed?; How can it be computed?; Efficient computability; Practical Computability; Physical Computability; Ethical Computability." The author is the CS professor who gave us the wonderful valid sentence "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo". (via Hacker News)

Continue reading Four short links: 9 September 2019.

Read the whole story
67 days ago
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. But you probably already knew that. It only makes sense.
Wilmington, NC, USA
Share this story

curl exercises

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Recently I’ve been interested in how people learn things. I was reading Kathy Sierra’s great book Badass: Making Users Awesome. It talks about the idea of deliberate practice.

The idea is that you find a small micro-skill that can be learned in maybe 3 sessions of 45 minutes, and focus on learning that micro-skill. So, as an exercise, I was trying to think of a computer skill that I thought could be learned in 3 45-minute sessions.

I thought that making HTTP requests with curl might be a skill like that, so here are some curl exercises as an experiment!

what’s curl?

curl is a command line tool for making HTTP requests. I like it because it’s an easy way to test that servers or APIs are doing what I think, but it’s a little confusing at first!

Here’s a drawing explaining curl’s most important command line arguments (which is page 6 of my Bite Size Networking zine). You can click to make it bigger.

fluency is valuable

With any command line tool, I think having fluency is really helpful. It’s really nice to be able to just type in the thing you need. For example recently I was testing out the Gumroad API and I was able to just type in:

curl https://api.gumroad.com/v2/sales \
                         -d "access_token=<SECRET>" \
                         -X GET  -d "before=2016-09-03"

and get things working from the command line.

21 curl exercises

These exercises are about understanding how to make different kinds of HTTP requests with curl. They’re a little repetitive on purpose. They exercise basically everything I do with curl.

To keep it simple, we’re going to make a lot of our requests to the same website: https://httpbin.org. httpbin is a service that accepts HTTP requests and then tells you what request you made.

  1. Request https://httpbin.org
  2. Request https://httpbin.org/anything. httpbin.org/anything will look at the request you made, parse it, and echo back to you what you requested. curl’s default is to make a GET request.
  3. Make a POST request to https://httpbin.org/anything
  4. Make a GET request to https://httpbin.org/anything, but this time add some query parameters (set value=panda).
  5. Request google’s robots.txt file (www.google.com/robots.txt)
  6. Make a GET request to https://httpbin.org/anything and set the header User-Agent: elephant.
  7. Make a DELETE request to https://httpbin.org/anything
  8. Request https://httpbin.org/anything and also get the response headers
  9. Make a POST request to https://httpbin.com/anything with the JSON body {"value": "panda"}
  10. Make the same POST request as the previous exercise, but set the Content-Type header to application/json (because POST requests need to have a content type that matches their body). Look at the json field in the response to see the difference from the previous one.
  11. Make a GET request to https://httpbin.org/anything and set the header Accept-Encoding: gzip (what happens? why?)
  12. Put a bunch of a JSON in a file and then make a POST request to https://httpbin.org/anything with the JSON in that file as the body
  13. Make a request to https://httpbin.org/image and set the header ‘Accept: image/png’. Save the output to a PNG file and open the file in an image viewer. Try the same thing with with different Accept: headers.
  14. Make a PUT request to https://httpbin.org/anything
  15. Request https://httpbin.org/image/jpeg, save it to a file, and open that file in your image editor.
  16. Request https://www.twitter.com. You’ll get an empty response. Get curl to show you the response headers too, and try to figure out why the response was empty.
  17. Make any request to https://httpbin.org/anything and just set some nonsense headers (like panda: elephant)
  18. Request https://httpbin.org/status/404 and https://httpbin.org/status/200. Request them again and get curl to show the response headers.
  19. Request https://httpbin.org/anything and set a username and password (with -u username:password)
  20. Download the Twitter homepage (https://twitter.com) in Spanish by setting the Accept-Language: es-ES header.
  21. Make a request to the Stripe API with curl. (see https://stripe.com/docs/development for how, they give you a test API key). Try making exactly the same request to https://httpbin.org/anything.
Read the whole story
78 days ago
The "copy as curl" trick is neat!

Without a doubt, cURL is awesome. But after years of looking at the damned man page every time I want to make a simple request, I've starting using HTTPie for http requests. It is *sooo* much easier to use.
Wilmington, NC, USA
Share this story

FOSS Project Spotlight: Bareos, a Cross-Network, Open-Source Backup Solution

1 Comment
Bareos Backup Solution

Bareos (Backup Archiving Recovery Open Sourced) is a cross-network, open-source backup solution that preserves, archives and recovers data from all major operating systems. The Bareos project started 2010 as a Bacula fork and is now being developed under the AGPLv3 license.

The client/server-based backup solution is actually a set of computer programs (Figure 1) that communicate over the network: the Bareos Director (BD), one or more Storage Dæmons (SD) and the File Dæmons (FD). Due to this modular design, Bareos is scalable—from single computer systems (where all components run on one machine) to large infrastructures with hundreds of computers (even in different geographies).

Figure 1. A Typical Bareos Setup: Director (with Database), File Dæmon(s), Storage Dæmon(s) and Backup Media

The director is the central control unit for all other dæmons. It manages the database (catalog), the connected clients, the file sets (they define which data Bareos should back up), the configuration of optional plugins, before and after jobs (programs to be executed before or after a backup job), the storage and media pool, schedules and the backup jobs. Bareos Director runs as a dæmon.

The catalog maintains a record of all backup jobs, saved files and volumes used. Current Bareos versions support PostgreSQL, MySQL and SQLite, with PostgreSQL being the preferred database back end.

The File Dæmon (FD) must be installed on every client machine. It is responsible for the backup as well as the restore process. The FD receives the director's instructions, executes them and transmits the data to the Bareos Storage Dæmon. Bareos offers pre-packed file dæmons for many popular operating systems, such as Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Windows and macOS. Like the director, the FD runs as a dæmon in the background.

The Storage Dæmon (SD) receives data from one or more File Dæmons (at the director's request). It stores the data (together with the file attributes) on the configured backup medium. Bareos supports various types of backup media, as shown in Figure 1, including disks, tape drives and even cloud storage solutions. During the restore process, the SD is responsible for sending the correct data back to the FD(s). The Storage Dæmon runs as a dæmon on the machine handling the backup device(s).

Backup Jobs

A backup job defines what to back up (FileSet directive for the client), when to back up (schedule) and where to back up (for example, on a disk, tape, etc.). Bareos is quite flexible, and you can mix different directives. So you can have different job definitions (resources), backing up different machines, but using the same schedule, the same FileSet and even the same backup medium.

Read the whole story
182 days ago
OS background services are called "daemons", not "dæmons". The funky spelling wouldn't even be pronounced correctly.
Wilmington, NC, USA
Share this story
Next Page of Stories