James Bucanek wrote:

Marc Bizer wrote:I appreciate your precision, but in terms of interacting with the software (UX), does it really matter what is happening underneath?

We certainly like to think so!

Sorry to persist, but if the user isn't supposed to know what is underneath, why have the UI rely on a terminology that is keyed to what is happening underneath rather than to what the user is experiencing?

James Bucanek wrote:
The problem with most of these networked file synchronization solutions is that they are file oriented. In other words, you make a change to a local file and that file will be uploaded?in its entirety?to the server. Later, it will be downloaded?in its entirety?back to your other devices.

Are you familiar with the backup utility Arq? It doesn't do data deduplication, but I'm pretty sure that it just keeps an archive of files on Google Drive, Amazon S3, etc. with some sort of index on one's local hard drive. I don't know whether it's possible to send just quanta via these cloud APIs -- have you checked Google's for example?

Another question: if I stored the QRecall archive on an NAS or Time Capsule, would QR automatically mount and unmount the storage volume?

I see QR as a great replacement for Time Machine -- except that you can't use it to restore an entire hard disk, right?

James Bucanek wrote:

So if you want, feel free to think of QRecall as copying files, making backups, and taking snapshots. Just remember that that is not what is happening under the hood.

I appreciate your precision, but in terms of interacting with the software (UX), does it really matter what is happening underneath?

About a year ago, the developer noted, "current version of QRecall can only capture to an archive document on a mounted filesystem."

So what about plans to allow backup to online servers, such as Google Drive, Box, and Amazon S3?

I'm curious as to why the documentation for Qrecall (and its UI) uses terms uncommon to other backup software. For example, in his eBook "Mac OS X Backups" (p.111), Joe Kissell notes that "has a peculiar interface that introduces several unusual terms (such as "capture," "recall," "layer," and "timeline") that force you to think about backups in ways you may not be accustomed to."

I'm curious as to why the developer has adopted these terms. The standard equivalent for "layer" and "capture" is "snapshot," for example. If one wishes to use "capture" as a verb, then why not just use "backup"?

James Bucanek wrote:Bruce,

Excellent suggestion. I'll make sure they get a copy of the press release tomorrow.

What about macupdate.com? They still list version 1.2.3 as the most current.