Though I’d be surprised if you’re still reading this thread, I think some of your points deserve at least a little more discussion. You clearly know more about the technical details of the relevant file systems and backup technologies than I ever will, and you’re probably right – Flyback (and other rsync-based backup solutions) lack some important features when compared to Time Machine and Windows Restore Points. But what about the more obvious things (to me, at least) that Time Machine lacks? I don’t think it supports backups to more than one location at a time. It doesn’t support backups to non-Apple networked drives (though there are, apparently, ways around this last obstacle). While I loved the interface to Time Machine, loved its ability to restore single settings and emails, and loved its usability, I hated how difficult it was to make Time Machine work how *I* wanted it to. And we both know that pigs will fly before Apple lets every wannabe l337 d00d tinker with Time Machine…and maybe improve it.

Rsync and ext3 may be getting long in the tooth, but they’re easily customized. They’ve also spawned a tremendous number of derivative programs from which I can choose the one which best fits my needs. It sounded to me like the original post’s author was more impressed by Flyback’s ease of configuration and use (a la Time Machine) than its exact technical capabilities. Would I prefer that Linux take advantage of all the latest file systems and technology? Sure. Does that mean that Linux is being left in the dust? Maybe not.