The author of that issue said they had backups, on an external drive.. that Steam also wiped.
You can say 'robust' but there are limits of what I think one can reasonably expect from a user. That they had backups at all is not necessarily the norm.
You can say 'robust' but there are limits of what I think one can reasonably expect from a user. That they had backups at all is not necessarily the norm.
If you want to guard against rogue software (or clumsy fingers in the terminal), you'll probably need to have remote backups. It sounds like copies on the cloud saved this user, and it's not unrealistic to suggest users backup to the cloud (I think many already do with OneDrive/iCloud/Dropbox). If you're a Linux user who likes to tinker, you can set up a Raspberry Pi with a hard drive attached and use restic over SFTP (or any of the other numerous choices).
That is fair. I was commenting from the perspective of what is rather than what should be. Alongside making software as safe as possible, we should also be encouraging and expecting people to do this.
Not sure if rsync can do local encryption these days? So I guess 'for the paranoid' (as Tarsnap's tagline is), Tarsnap with write-only keys might be better.
By old files, that can mean any snapshot schedule you choose to set up (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly ...).
No one can delete the files afterwards, not even root, without removing the attribute first
It worked well with Mercurial, which is also append only. So I could commit as usually to my Mercurial repository, but it could not be deleted.
Ironically, I stopped doing that, because it messed my backups up. When running the backups as root, some tools would add the flag to the backuped files, but then later backups as non-root could not replace the file with new versions.