Am 16.07.2015 um 02:22 schrieb Valeri Galtsev <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> 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!
I personally prefer bacula. For more informations about the case above look at:
http://blog.bacula.org/category/kerns-blog/
http://blog.bacula.org/category/status-reports/
http://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/message/33199834/
--
LF
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
