1

I would like to clone my OS drive, to a same/larger disk. And I will do this periodically.

On Windows I use AOEMI Partition Assistant to clone disks. The GUI is very good and idiot-proof. However, Linux isn't supported.

I have tried Clonezilla and I didn't find the walkthrough completely obvious/idiot-proof.

dd petrifies me in case I make a mistake.

Is there anything else to recommend? Particularly anything which contains explicit safety checks to ensure the current OS drive is not over-written.

intrigued_66
  • 181
  • 4
  • You probably will have more luck [over there](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions). It is a bit broad here and yes, usually you are supposed to know what you are doing **AND** have made a backup first. There's only so much you can check and protect against without annoying the hell out of those who know exactly what they're after. – Eduardo Trápani Aug 10 '23 at 20:45
  • 1
    @EduardoTrápani I think I've been doing Linux for about 25 years, at differing levels of professionality. `dd` and clonezilla really don't count as viable products in terms of UX as cloning tools. This has nothing to do with being inexperienced. Humans make mistakes, and a user interface can be designed to both make mistakes harder to make and the right thing easier and quicker to do. In all honesty, the two aforementioned tools are *bad*, as tools. I think "Linux on the desktop" would have come quite a distance further if we, as a community, wouldn't knee jerk react to UX criticism. – Marcus Müller Aug 10 '23 at 21:13
  • 1
    For example, this post asks for a thoroughly sensible feature - do not overwrite the system installation. Neither impossible to implement nor a sign of not knowing what one is doing, but quite the contrary, a simple analysis, bootloader inspection would instantly allow avoidance of that, and knowing that I'll one day click on the wrong target is exactly what I'd call "being an experienced admin". – Marcus Müller Aug 10 '23 at 21:16
  • Often better to just do a new install & restore from your normal backup. I use rsync (to multiple places), but many suggest rsync only for files that do not change a lot like media and use rdiff so you have versions and somewhat older deleted files. If you have good backups then mistakes are nor the end of the world. – oldfred Aug 11 '23 at 02:41
  • Have you tried Macrium Reflect? I’ve definitely backed up Linux partitions with the rescue disk. Can’t say I’ve ever restored from that backup but I’ve no reason to think it will not work. Could be worth testing, it’s certainly a friendly foolproof UI – PonJar Aug 11 '23 at 09:55
  • the trouble with "don't overwrite the system partition" is defining what the system partition actually is. on many systems with simple partitioning layouts, it will be obvious. it will be far less obvious on more complicated systems....and that will require either asking the user (which requires the user to know the answer - this is basically how clonezilla handles the problem) or just make potentially dangerous guesses/assumptions. – cas Aug 11 '23 at 11:33
  • And that's not even considering the fact that the OS partition may not be the one that's important to preserve at all costs. With the exception of config files in /etc (which should be backed up regularly) and stuff in /home, /usr/local, or /opt (if they're on the root fs), the root fs itself is mostly disposable and easily replaced just by re-installing....the OS is effectively already "backed up on the internet". And Linux is NOT like Windows, it does not require that special system files be in specific locations on the partition - a simple file copy is good enough to get a bootable system. – cas Aug 11 '23 at 11:40
  • And, yes, many programs could use improve UI & UX. But some things can not be simplified so that they can be done without any knowledge or effort on the part of the user. This is the long-standing divide between "easy to learn" (which is what many people think is "easy to use", but often ends up being overly-simplified and useful only for novices) vs "easy to use" (which is often harder to learn at first but allows advanced capabilities for those who put in the effort to learn and master it). These two approaches to UI have been in conflict since at least the 1970s, when home PCs began. – cas Aug 11 '23 at 11:49
  • Both approaches are valid and have their uses and their target audiences. You can't just assume that those who prefer software to support complexity have no idea about UI & UX, that it's just ignorance and laziness. It's different choices for different needs / different people. e.g. Some people can't use vi. I can't understand how anyone could waste their time on a lesser editor (and, contrary to all the ignorant + stupid jokes about "can't quit vi", I can never figure out how to quit nano without saving vs save & quit - it's far from obvious, not "intuitive", and the difference is important) – cas Aug 11 '23 at 11:58

0 Answers0