g4u g4l comparison

Gary Thornock gthornock at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 26 16:44:48 MST 2007

--- Daniel <teletautala at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have heard a little about g4u and g4l, but I don't know which
> would be better.  I want to "ghost" a drive and be able to
> either burn a compressed image onto a DVD or send it to an sftp
> server.  I want to image disks with Windows, OSX, Netware,
> Linux, etc OSs on them or a combination of OSs.
> Neither g4u nor g4l show up in the repositories for Ubuntu 6
> nor Fedora 4.  I can download and try to install the software
> from the native sites, but if something doesn't work, I won't
> be sure if I did it wrong or if I need to download something
> else.
> Is there a better disk imaging solution than either of these?
> More user friendly?  How does partimage compare to these?

Neither one will show up in a package repository because they're
both bootable live CD systems. g4u is based on NetBSD.  I don't
know what Linux distribution was used as the base for g4l.

g4l was apparently copied from g4u in violation of the license:
see http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html.  I'd have recommended g4u
anyway, but there's one more reason.

Partimage is a bit different.  I haven't used it, but from the
look of things, it runs in an existing Linux distribution, and
tries to understand the contents of the partitions that it
images.  This has the benefit of producing smaller image files
for supported partition types, but it comes at the cost that you
can only image disks with PC BIOS partition tables (no BSD, no
Mac, etc.), and you can only image filesystems that are supported
in partimage (the list looks like it supports the most common
filesystems used in Linux, but again, very limited "beta" BSD and
Mac support, only "experimental" NTFS, and no current FreeBSD
(UFS2), and no Netware).

More information about the PLUG mailing list