webdancers Blog

The Search for Online Backup (updated)

By Greg Falken | August 27th, 2010

Is it safe?I had a scare earlier in the summer, when a house down the street from me caught fire (see All Tweets Are Local). Thankfully, it was quickly contained and never spread but it was a stark reminder that I have a lot of important data in my home office, as you probably do too. When I travel, I’ll often take my external hard drive with me, which contains nightly backups from my desktop computer. This gives me some peace of mind but it’s a rather clunky solution that doesn’t work if I’m just out around town for the day. Better to add a remote backup service to automate the process of moving my important data off-site, in addition to backing it up locally.

There are dozens (if not hundreds) of companies offering remote backup services. Choosing one is an important commitment, not only from an ongoing cost standpoint but also because of the pain of changing backup systems after one is all set up. While choosing a system for myself, these were some of the features and criteria that I thought were important to compare:

  • Storage capacity – This comes down to a choice between fixed and unlimited storage. I am somewhat suspicious of unlimited storage, because the company offering it must bet on how many people will use really large amounts of storage. If they miss their bet, they run the risk of having oversold their available capacity. I know how much storage I will need and am more comfortable with purchasing two or three times that much for my own use.
  • Management software – All online services use some kind of client software (a program that runs at all times on your computer) to manage the backup process. This software needs to be well designed, easy to understand and play nicely with the rest of your computer’s software and operating system.
  • Multi-computer licensing – Will you need to buy a separate license for each computer you want to back up? Many companies have a “family pack” that allows multiple computers to use the same license. Note that my research was limited to “home use”, rather than “office use” systems.
  • Performance impact – Because the backup software is always running, it should have a minimal impact on the performance of your computer, both when it is idle and when it is performing backups. Since it is using your Internet connection to upload files, it should also have the ability to control its own bandwidth usage. Ideally, it will be able to sense when you are using you computer, minimizing it’s impact at those times and otherwise running at full throttle.
  • Restoration process – Having 50 gigabytes of files stored online is great but what happens if you need to restore it all quickly? Some companies will burn your files to DVDs or an external hard disk and ship it to you, at an extra cost of course. It’s also worth noting if there is a web-based system for restoring files and whether it can be accessed from any online computer.
  • Trial usage – It’s impossible to evaluate these systems just from reading about them. You have to run the software, back some files up, restore them again and generally slam the doors and kick the tires. Some companies offer a trial version of their full system for a limited time. Others give you a limited amount of storage (usually 2-3 GB) free forever. Either way, you should be able to give the system a thorough shakedown. Note that backing up large amounts of data online happens over many days or even weeks. So make sure that you can do a thorough test with a limited time trial.
  • Strong encryption – There is all kinds of stuff on my computer, going back over many years. I don’t even remember much of it but I know that there is some that I wouldn’t want anyone else to see. All data that is stored online needs to be encrypted well and automatically.
  • Support – In addition to formal support programs, I like to see forums or social help systems, where users can communicate directly with each other. Not only does this give you an idea of where the problem areas are within a system, it also relieves some of the burden on a company’s tech support staff. Also very important is complete and readable documentation.
  • Company stability – Obviously, if they shut the doors, all of your stored data becomes worthless.
  • Cost - Most of the systems I evaluated cost $40 – $60 per year. Variables were storage capacity and single versus multi-computer licenses.

And the winner is…

…not who I thought it would be. I had been looking pretty closely at Memopal, because their pricing includes up to 10 computers sharing a pool of 200 GB of storage, a model that would have worked well for me. However, while testing their 3 GB free offer for the past couple of weeks, my settings wouldn’t stay set and the web interface was balky. I just didn’t have the confidence to commit to them.

BackblazeI am now on day 2 of a 15 day trial with Backblaze, watching it slowly upload over 72 GB of files. It won’t finish within the trial period but I can test their system pretty thoroughly, including the web interface and restore functions.

Backblaze takes the approach that backing up more is better. They back up everything on your computer except your operating system, applications, temporary files, or those over 9 GB. You don’t choose what to include in your backup, only directories or files that you want to exclude. Storage space is unlimited and you can back up multiple computers to the same account, although there is a charge for each one. File restoration can be done by online download (for free) or they will FedEx your files on DVD or USB hard drive, for an additional charge.

Backblaze is available for Windows or Mac and the client software is very lightweight (currently occupying 8196 K of memory on my machine). It also provides for bandwidth throttling, so that you can control how much of your Internet connection it will use. If it gets through the next 14 days without any significant issues, I’ll sign up for a year of service for my primary computer, for $50. It will feel good to have added that safety net to my data.

Posted in Online Tools | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Humanize Your Online Presence

By Greg Falken | August 23rd, 2010

Audio ConsoleI like buttons that light up. I was about 15 when I walked into a real recording studio (Ike Turner’s Bolic Sound, in Inglewood, CA) and saw more lit up buttons than I had ever seen in one room before. The engineer in charge, whose name is now lost to me, was very generous with his time; explaining to me how the electrical signals in the recording chain are created by the air pressure changes that enter the microphones when sounds are made. These signals remain in the electronic realm until they are changed back into “sound” by the movement of speakers against the air. This “analog” between air pressure and electrical current is what distinguishes analog from digital recording (a moot point in 1973).

There’s a part of me that loves technology for its own sake, for the coolness factor, for the “ooooh” reaction that I have when, well, buttons light up. I’m sure that’s what originally drew me to the Internet. Now that I am (certainly) older and (hopefully) wiser, I am attempting to apply a more human view to my understanding and use of technology, especially the Internet. Here are a few thoughts on how to do this.

Use Your Online Voice

Many years ago, I took a performance class and the instructor told to, “sing as you speak”. In other words, if you’re not sure how to phrase or pronounce something in a song, think of how you would say it in your normal speaking voice. So too online do we need to speak in our natural voice. Techno-speak and sales-speak work very poorly here. If these arcane forms of speech are your natural voice, consider item two, below.

Speak To Be Understood

Closely related to using your online voice is tailoring your speech so that those that you’re speaking to can understand you. Avoid the use of words that your audience won’t understand. If you’re introducing new concepts, try and explain them using metaphors or examples. And if you must use acronyms, make sure they’re completely written out somewhere, at least once.

Sometimes being understood means not writing at all. Lately, I’ve been using screenshots and video screencasts as a substitute for writing out step by step instructions. The people that I’ve sent these to find it much easier to understand, say, how to upload documents to WordPress, when they can listen to me talk them them through the process as they watch it happen on their screen. I’ve been using Jing to create these and it’s dead simple.

Show Your Work

Very few ideas spring up out of nowhere (at least mine don’t). One of the great things about the web is the ease with which we can relate things to one another by linking to them. Using hyperlinks allows us to refer back to the source of an idea, provide additional detail or give credit where credit is due. They allow us to take part in the very human act of sharing, saying in effect, “if you’d like more information, take a look over here”.

These are just three ideas about how to humanize online technology. Let’s hear your ideas too. Please add comments.

Audio console photo by Steve Manson

Posted in Web Presence | Tagged , | Leave a comment

It’s time to start paying attention to net neutrality

By Greg Falken | August 16th, 2010
Failed Net Neutrality

Failed Net Neutrality

Although the term net neutrality has been kicked around in government and the media for the past two or three years, it’s still not well understood. The first paragraph of a very long Wikipedia article offers this definition:

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.

Pretty dry stuff. Not much there to get worked up about; it’s basically the Internet that we have now. In recent days though, with the announcement of a joint proposal by Google and Verizon for addressing the issue, it’s becoming clearer how decisions made by corporations and government can affect the Internet of the future for users like you and me.

In her 2001 book Ruling the Waves, Debora Spar describes the four phases of a technology’s life: Innovation, commercialization, creative anarchy and rules.

During the innovation and commercialization phases, the very idea of governance seems absurd. What occurs during the phase of creative anarchy, though, is critical; for it is here that even the pioneers begin to realize the costs of chaos. And once they realize these costs, once they understand that a lack of rules can diminish their own financial prospects, they begin to lobby for what they once explicitly rejected.

With Google and Verizon’s proposed pact, the Internet has clearly moved into the Rules phase. While the agreement currently has no force of law, it could form the basis for industry’s further negotiations with the FCC, which recently withdrew from private talks with the two companies.

What’s in the agreement that caused Wired to declare Google “a carrier-humping, net neutrality surrender monkey“? The Guardian has a good summary:

On the surface, this agreement doesn’t look too nefarious. Verizon has agreed to respect the end-to-end principle on its wired networks and Google has reiterated its commitment to net neutrality. However, the proposal specifically excludes wireless internet services. The agreement also proposes that so-called “managed services” on the wired network – essentially fast lanes carved out of the bandwidth currently used by the internet – be exempt from any rules that govern the web.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, Google and Verizon have suggested that industry-led advisery groups write the rules for what’s left of the internet. In matters of consumer protection and nondiscrimination, the FCC’s actions would be subject to approval by the very companies that the agency is meant to oversee.

It’s clear why this proposal is attractive to Google and Verizon. With net neutrality out of the picture, Verizon would be free to extract additional fees from content providers and users in exchange for access to the fast lanes. Google is large enough that it could afford to pay these fees, thereby assuring speedy delivery of its content and a competitive advantage.

I have not heard or read anyone, anywhere, arguing that this could be a good deal for consumers of Internet services. Commentators have been more frequently proclaiming the end of the Internet as we know it. In his post Internet, schmitnternet, Jeff Jarvis worries about the effects of an Internet divided between old, wireline services and anything mobile or new (the “Schminternet”).

So ol, grandpa internet may chug along giving us YouTube videos of flaming cats, but you want to get that while you’re out of your house? Well, that’s the nonnet. I can hear the customer “service” rep explaining this to us:

“Oh, no, sir. That’s not offered on the internet. That’s on the schminternet.”

You want something new? Anything created after 2010?

“Schminternet, sir.”

He even goes so far as to call it a Munich Pact, a comment which Josh Marshall calls, “a bit inflammatory but unfortunately pretty much captures it.”

Just as Czechoslovakia was not invited to its cutting apart, so were we not invited to Google and Verizon’s parlays.

But the internet is ours, not yours, Verizon and Google. This is why we need our Bill of Rights in Cyberspace.

It is critical that policies be created that regulate the Internet as a public resource, not on the terms of those who stand to profit. The agency charged with protecting the public interest in this matter is the FCC. Public comments are still being accepted on two proceedings: “In the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service” (proceeding 10-127) and “In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices” (proceeding 09-191). Comments can be entered online at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list.

Google, Verizon and other telecom and large media companies are betting that the subject of net neutrality is too complicated and obscure to attract public attention. We need to let them and our representatives in government know that we are watching as events unfold and we are willing to demand our right to a single Internet that grants equal access to all who use it.

Net neutrality graphic by Gizmodo.

Posted in Conversation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s next for the web: A kid’s eye view

By Greg Falken | August 13th, 2010

Latitude and ReadWriteWeb recently partnered in a study, in which kids 6-12 years old were asked to share their ideas on future web development concepts. Latitude also produced this video, summing up the key findings and illustrating the kid’s tremendous capacity for innovation.

The written results were published in two parts, plus a study summary:

Check it out and you’ll come away with an appreciation for the ideas that come from young minds that are unrestricted by the unconventional or the “impossible”.

Posted in Conversation | Tagged | Leave a comment

Improved Gmail Contacts

By Greg Falken | August 11th, 2010

Gmail InboxIf you’re a Gmail user, you may have noticed a slight change to the upper left corner of your inbox. The plain text link for “Compose Mail” has been replaced by a nicer looking button and the links for Contacts and Tasks have been moved up.

The area that’s gotten a much bigger face-lift is Contacts. Speculation is that Google is adding features to Contacts in preparation for releasing Google Me, its rumored answer to Facebook. Whatever the reason, the changes are welcome. Contacts was a holdover from Gmail’s early bare-bones interface. Contacts now looks and works more like the rest of Gmail. According to the Official Gmail Blog:

Contacts now works more like the rest of Gmail, so if you know how to use Gmail, now you should automatically feel comfortable in Contacts too. And you’ll see a bunch of the features you’ve requested, including:

  • Keyboard shortcuts (go to Contacts and hit “?” for the full list)
  • Sort by last name (look under “More actions”)
  • Custom labels for phone numbers and other fields
  • The ability to undo changes you’ve just made
  • Automatic saving
  • Structured name fields, so you can adjust titles, suffixes, and other name components
  • A bigger, more prominent notes field

Google Contacts

Reviews of the changes have been universally good. TechCruch says:

The two main themes of this redesign were simplicity and consistency (with the rest of Gmail), Grol says. From the looks of it, they’ve done a nice job. While it’s still not the prettiest thing in the world, it does look a lot like Gmail now, and the area is much easier to use. I’ve been playing around with it for the past day or so, and I’ve already done more contact organizing in that short time span then I have in the past several years.

Grol says that Contacts was easily the feature that users complained about the most within Gmail. People may have to find something else to complain about now.

The new Contacts are not available yet for Google Apps customers but Google plans to roll out the new version there too, in the near future.

Posted in Online Tools | Tagged | Leave a comment