On Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 8:22 PM Valeri Galtsev <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, July 15, 2015 7:05 pm, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 10:37 AM <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> My manager just tasked me at looking at this, for one team we're
> supporting. Now, he'd been thinking of bacula, but I see their Windows
> binaries are now not-free, so I'm looking around. IIRC, Les thinks highly
> of backuppc; comments on that, or other packaged solutions?
>
>
> We use Bareos extensively. By default, Bareos is Bacula-compatible. We use
> Bareos extensively.
What is the story between bareos and bacula? And why you prefer bareos as
opposed to bacula. Just curios: I use bacula (it is bacula 5, server is
FreeBSD, clients are CentOS 5,6,7, FreeBSD 9,10, Windows 7). Thanks for
your insights!
Story, as I understand it, is that the developer needed an incentive to get
people to pay for a license, so closed distribution of the Windows File
Daemon (the program that reads files and sends them off for storage, for
those unfamiliar) so that only those who pay for a subscription can use it.
(This is all perfectly legal.)
Naturally, this pissed off people who couldn't afford the license, but were
already committed to their implementation.
So...Bareos is a fork from the last open version of that code.
As for why I use Bareos, I'd spent copious time studying Bacula's manual
and figuring out how to apply it. I was 80% of the way through
implementation, complete with offsite backup of all my Linux hosts.
And then I went to back up the Windows hosts. I was not happy.
Took me only a day to rebuild it with Bareos.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
