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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
