> Am 28.01.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Peter Eckel <lists at eckel-edv.de>: > > Hi Alessandro, > >> Why many users skip bacula? It is powerfull and very stable. It is very difficult to setup but if you know how it works it is simple.IMHO - as Kern (Bacula lead developer) is pushing Bacula forward I dont understand this too. It must be a misinformation about the current status of the project itself and competitors interests (Bareos).> I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos. > > There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste.Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average): https://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/bacula-announce/> Obviously I wasn't alone with this, because roughly at that time Bareos was forked from Bacula. > > <http://www.admin-magazine.com/Archive/2013/17/New-features-in-the-Bareos-Bacula-fork> > > Essentially, Bareos is an improved (at least IMHO) fork of Bacula, and unlike Bacuka it's fully open source.IIRC Bacula is also open source software. Remember RHEL binaries are not free available ... if you are referring to precompiled MS Windows binaries of Bacula). BTW Bacula is included in CentOS/RHEL albeit in an older version. This applies also for example to PHP and has the cause in the enterprise strategy of the distribution. So don't blame the wrong one. Maybe a good reason to start a Backup SIG which provides a repository with current bacula packages? -- LF
On Monday 28 January 2019 12:23:25 Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:> > Am 28.01.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Peter Eckel <lists at eckel-edv.de>:> > I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos. > > > > There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula > > became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste. > > Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average): > > https://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/bacula-announce/I am a long time user of Bacula (Fedora 9) but I must admit that I do not keep up with versions. (I'm still running the F9 Bacula 5.2 director). What real world benefits would I get from upgrading to the current Bacula version? What problems woudl I have? What are the arguments for/against Bareos? My storage servers range from F9 to C7 and all work fine. I'm still using the old WinBacula clients even with the new Win10 boxes.
On 1/28/2019 4:23 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:>> I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos. >> >> There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste. > Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average):BackupPC suffered from the same issue. V3 is still what's available in the default repository. Since then, the dev has resumed active work and released v4, a major upgrade, and actively fixes bugs. https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc Yum repo for v4: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/hobbes1069/BackupPC/
Hi Leon,> IMHO - as Kern (Bacula lead developer) is pushing Bacula forward I dont understand this too. It must be > a misinformation about the current status of the project itself and competitors interests (Bareos).the fork of Bacula happened in 2013, IIRC. Things may have changed since then, but I did not bother to switch back. It's a good thing, however, that there was a change. The fact that I can't find any recent RPMs anymore is definitely nothing that makes switching back an attractive option :-)> IIRC Bacula is also open source software. Remember RHEL binaries are not free > available ... if you are referring to precompiled MS Windows binaries of Bacula).In fact Bacula is open core, i.e. there is an enterprise version that has additional functionality not contained in the community edition. It's only fair, however, to note that there is also a downside to Bareos' concept - binary distributions are released less frequently to the community while enterprise service subscribers receive more frequent binary updates.> BTW Bacula is included in CentOS/RHEL albeit in an older version. This applies also > for example to PHP and has the cause in the enterprise strategy of the distribution. > So don't blame the wrong one.I'm not blaming anyone at all - as a user of CentOS/RHEL I know about the drawbacks of a stable enterprise vs. bleeding edge release strategy.> Maybe a good reason to start a Backup SIG which provides a repository with current bacula packages?Hm ... there used to be a repository maintained by some company associated with Bacula, but I can't find it anymore - so it seems that starting a SIG taking care of that would be a good idea. Cheers, Peter. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 235 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20190128/733cac54/attachment-0002.sig>
On 1/28/19 6:23 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:> >> Am 28.01.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Peter Eckel <lists at eckel-edv.de>: >> >> Hi Alessandro, >> >>> Why many users skip bacula? It is powerfull and very stable. It is very difficult to setup but if you know how it works it is simple. > > > IMHO - as Kern (Bacula lead developer) is pushing Bacula forward I dont understand this too. It must be > a misinformation about the current status of the project itself and competitors interests (Bareos). > > > > >> I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos. >> >> There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste. > > > Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average): >No rant intended... I believe, at some point there were no binary client for Windows system released for latest (at that point) bacula release. One could get that if one was a paid customer though, which my Department(s) WAS. That put _me_ off of upgrades to the server, and ultimately affected decision to switch over to bareos. (the very first thing I noticed: "status director" command in console in bareos was executed very fast compared my old bacula server. But that could be just me). That said, I want to express gratitude bacula team for the great job they were doing which really made my backup for two departments I work for just a wonder. Several times I had to do restore, and that saved my people who accidentally deleted some important stuff (whole version control place for some important software project with all history, releases, branches was one of them).> https://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/bacula-announce/ > > > >> Obviously I wasn't alone with this, because roughly at that time Bareos was forked from Bacula. >> >> <http://www.admin-magazine.com/Archive/2013/17/New-features-in-the-Bareos-Bacula-fork> >> >> Essentially, Bareos is an improved (at least IMHO) fork of Bacula, and unlike Bacuka it's fully open source. > > > IIRC Bacula is also open source software. Remember RHEL binaries are not free > available ... if you are referring to precompiled MS Windows binaries of Bacula). > > BTW Bacula is included in CentOS/RHEL albeit in an older version. This applies also > for example to PHP and has the cause in the enterprise strategy of the distribution. > So don't blame the wrong one.In this place I will just second what you said. Valeri> > Maybe a good reason to start a Backup SIG which provides a repository with current bacula packages? > > > -- > LF > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 1/28/19 4:23 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:> IMHO - as Kern (Bacula lead developer) is pushing Bacula forward I dont understand this too. It must be > a misinformation about the current status of the project itself and competitors interests (Bareos).There's probably going to be a lot of misinformation where bareos is concerned.? The developers forked that product claiming that when they signed license assignments they didn't know that this could or would allow Bacula to begin a dual-license release in which some features were added to a separate proprietary release. Bacula's developers claim that the fork included code that was not licensed to them.? Their lawsuit was settled with undisclosed terms.? Given what information is available publicly, I am inclined to believe that the fork was in the wrong, but users are often more concerned with protecting people that they like than they are in license compliance.
Hi Gordon,> There's probably going to be a lot of misinformation where bareos is concerned. The developers forked that product claiming that when they signed license assignments they didn't know that this could or would allow Bacula to begin a dual-license release in which some features were added to a separate proprietary release. Bacula's developers claim that the fork included code that was not licensed to them. Their lawsuit was settled with undisclosed terms. Given what information is available publicly, I am inclined to believe that the fork was in the wrong, but users are often more concerned with protecting people that they like than they are in license compliance.thanks for this interesting background information! On the other hand, I'm not trying to defend one company against the other - their lawsuit has been settled as you wrote, and so that's stuff that is in the past and doesn't have much relevance from a technical viewpoint. When I switched from Bacula to Bareos it was a purely technical decision, driven by the ease of maintaining an installation of Bareos vs. Bacula. In the meantime, the forks have diverged a bit, and there are some very interesting features (such as a flavour of opportunistic TLS encryption based on PSK) that make me stay with Bareos. Leon's suggestion of creating a Backup SIG that could - among other things - maintain an RPM release of recent Bacula versions would IMHO really help Bacula a lot. At least it would eliminate my first reason for switching, and probably it would never have happened had current releases been available more easily. Cheers, Peter.