Talk:Clonezilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Regarding notability: I think this falls under "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." from Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services. The site has gained nearly a million visitors in the span of five months, see [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.88.207 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - completely notable. This page is linked to by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_backup_software .

All of this is useful for someone researching FOSS backup options. This is an extremely important topic for anyone wishing to guarantee long-term storage of their data. Proprietary solutions are not an option, as this places the ability to recover data OUT of the hands of the owner of the data. Consequently having a list of open source backup software is important.

Any description of a software package is then pretty reliant on information about that package, so I think the editorial comment about attribution should also be removed, but someone else can do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosaicpat (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free for commercial use?[edit]

Can anybody find out if this is free for commercial business use?

That would be a nice addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.59.2 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


It is GPL Licensed which means it is free for Commercial Business use.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clonezilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Rescuezilla vs Clonezilla vs Redo Rescue[edit]

Hi, I am the developer of Rescuezilla, which is a graphical user interface for Clonezilla. I noticed a user from Germany recently made the following change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clonezilla&diff=1066010918&oldid=1058264440

That user adds to the "See Also" section a reference to "Redo Rescue, formerly Redo Backup and Recovery" as being "partly based on Clonezilla", but then links to Rescuezilla's website in the references section.

I believe the user is confusing Redo Rescue with Rescuezilla. As far as I know, "Redo Rescue" is not based on Clonezilla at all and is totally incompatible with it so has no relevance on the Clonezilla Wiki page. However Rescuezilla is fully compatible with Clonezilla (and partly based on Clonezilla) so I think that is what the user intended to link to.

The confusion may stem from the fact Rescuezilla was forked from Redo Backup and Recovery (now called Redo Rescue) because Redo had been abandoned for 7 years.

Rescuezilla does not have a Wikipedia page yet, and is not listed on the following pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_backup_software

I would fix this myself, but Wikipedia has rules against doing that. Hopefully somebody without a conflict of interest can make the changes required to fix what I've described above :)

Rescuezilla (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'not a backup' - not quite correct.[edit]

"Clonezilla, however, is not a backup or disaster recovery solution because it does not offer incremental and differential snapshots, scheduling, or interruption-free operation."

Clonezilla does not need to be booted standalone. e.g. apt-get install Clonezilla. It is not clear to me whether Clonezilla can bare metal copy / restore the 'partition' from which it is being executed from.

The article notes bare metal capabilities. Backup, by definition, is a copy. (Only.) Ergo, Clonezilla could reasonably be called a (disk) backup solution - certainly it can stand alongside other 'backup' applications. Having created an image, perhaps within an LVM2 | BTRFS filesystem, arguably, incremental, differential, and snapshot images are possible.

Although Clonezilla itself may be insufficient as a *self*-backup *regimen* (albeit some other such utility may incorporate Clonezilla within itself), it seems a misnomer to claim "Clonezilla, however, is not a backup or disaster recovery solution because it does not offer incremental and differential snapshots" - as few backup applications do so.

The author's intent, however, does seem -value add-, noting that backup applications are not entire failsafe ecosystems within themselves - but that is not quite the same thing as individually and particularly claiming "Clonezilla, however, is not a backup or disaster recovery solution".

A 'See Also' entry towards article(s) pertaining to environments containing 'entire redundancy ecosystems within themselves' -would- be very welcome, however, and would (better) address the author's obvious initial intent in the phrasing that this talk section observes.

-- B 65.93.22.145 (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clonezilla&oldid=1206201469"