in the article, the author(s) intentionally lead off the story by mentioning full system backup (which is WHS's default, btw...).
By doing so they are intentionally creating confusion and inferring that the main reason to use WHS has been removed - when as you have rightly explained, they are only referring to the WHS BU DB and the ability to automate a BU of it - which in TL's case is no necessary, since he has his WHS SYS in a traditional RAID to begin with.
Any case.... it is a terrible article as based upon a read of the comments, it has many people convinced of some things that just are not so... and frankly, it looks like the entire article was written by any idiot who has never really touched a WHS.
To be fair, WHS users do have good reasons to be pissed... the file corruption bug, lack of x64 bit client support, and the nasty propensity for WHS to drop drives when folder replication/mirroring is turned on, are my top three filed bugs/complaints. FP1/SP1 is supposed to address all of these and so far it looks like they will.
BS / Junk articles are not helping people and the endless and mindless linking to them without any context is making matters worse.
|