P.T. Breuer wrote:
> Chris Cox <ccox_nopenotthis@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>P.T. Breuer wrote:
>>
>>>Chris Cox <ccox_nopenotthis@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>P.T. Breuer wrote:
>>>>rsync is great for syncing two hosts... but not really for cloning
>>>>and falls into the same boot block issue as mentioned. Not sure
>>>
>>>You can't deal with a boot block by "cloning": you don't know what the
>>>target device is or where in the bios boot order it is or even what boot
>>>loader is being used, in order to modify its configuration (and you
>>
>>Usually cloning... means.... cloning.
>
>
> Which means producing an exact copy.
>
> From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (07Oct99) [foldoc]:
>
> clone
>
> 1. An exact duplicate: "Our product is a clone of their
> product." Implies a legal reimplementation from documentation
> or by reverse-engineering. Also connotes lower price.

This means exact drive, exact boot record, clone... clone.. clone...

....
>
>>This isn't a copy here... it's cloning.
>
>
> Which brand of doublespeak do you articulate?

I'm just saying the OP wanted to clone a disk. You gave
a recipe for coped disk data for use in a NON-cloning
arrangement.

>
>
>
>>Cloning... cloning... cloning.
>
>
> Yadda yadda yadda. Are you talking about some new meaning of the word
> that we are not party to, such as "not copying"?
>
>
>>You don't have to reply just because somebody pointed
>>out something you failed to mention.
>
>
> What?

When you clone, you want the boot record. Without it, you
just have copied data... like any backup.

>
>
>>...more stuff about NOT cloning snipped...
>
>
> Please go back off your drugs.

What a total ignorant slob you are... did I try to tell
you that you were on drugs... no.. just that you were
trying to confuse the idea of multiple machine cloning
with data copying... what a jerk for thinking anything
different... sheesh.. some people are just dumb
as dirt I guess.

> I pointed out that copying a disk
> wouldn't necesarily result in a bootable system, nor would any
> computational algorithm necessarily do so. Do you have any reason to
> doubt that?

Having CLONED a million of machines using a TRUE cloning
process I be to differ.... however, since you are not CLONING
but merely copying data to NON-like HW (therefore NOT a clone
since they ARE DIFFERENT).... do you get it... sheesh..

>
> Peter

Whatever...