I see that bareos is, actually, the descendent of bacula. I've been looking at some of the documentation, and searching, but one thing I'd like to find out, before I try to implement it, and that I haven't found yet: am I going to have to play games, to get it to back up to online storage, as opposed to tape? (I suppose I'm thinking tar, here, as "no games".) Is there some default setup for this scenario?
mark
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I see that bareos is, actually, the descendent of bacula. I've been looking at some of the documentation, and searching, but one thing I'd like to find out, before I try to implement it, and that I haven't found yet: am I going to have to play games, to get it to back up to online storage, as opposed to tape? (I suppose I'm thinking tar, here, as "no games".) Is there some default setup for this scenario?
Never mind. More googling found it.
Anyone know if this will ever make it into one of the std. repos, or is there a lawsuit ongoing, or....?
mark
No ongoing lawsuit, AFAIK. I use their upstream repos just fine.
Oh, and I don't use tape. I use the "File" and "GlusterFile" storage types, which work great. Gluster's a great fit, because of how easy it is to expand your storage dedicated to backups. Just add another brick or two...
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 5:46 PM m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I see that bareos is, actually, the descendent of bacula. I've been looking at some of the documentation, and searching, but one thing I'd like to find out, before I try to implement it, and that I haven't found yet: am I going to have to play games, to get it to back up to online storage, as opposed to tape? (I suppose I'm thinking tar, here, as "no games".) Is there some default setup for this scenario?
Never mind. More googling found it.
Anyone know if this will ever make it into one of the std. repos, or is there a lawsuit ongoing, or....?
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/16/2015 04:25 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I see that bareos is, actually, the descendent of bacula. I've been looking at some of the documentation, and searching, but one thing I'd like to find out, before I try to implement it, and that I haven't found yet: am I going to have to play games, to get it to back up to online storage, as opposed to tape? (I suppose I'm thinking tar, here, as "no games".) Is there some default setup for this scenario?
Never mind. More googling found it.
Anyone know if this will ever make it into one of the std. repos, or is there a lawsuit ongoing, or....?
There is not an ongoing lawsuit the best I can tell (there is a settled confidential one) .. BUT .. there is also nothing wrong with bacula charging for a license, especially in an enterprise environment (as long as they are playing nicely with all open source licenses, etc). I would therefore not necessarily expect to see a change in RHEL with respect to this issue. At least not specifically because of $$$ for licenses.
I have no inside information of any kind .. but going on the rules for EPEL (ie, not interfering with RHEL packages) and not necessarily seeing a problem for RHEL (at least RHEL 7) from a licensing perspective, I personally would expect that bareos MIGHT replace bacula at some point in future versions of Fedora and then that MIGHT be rolled into RHEL 8 and then make it into CentOS as part of that version.
Again, I have no direct knowledge, but that would be my expectation.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On 07/19/2015 11:04 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 07/16/2015 04:25 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I see that bareos is, actually, the descendent of bacula. I've been looking at some of the documentation, and searching, but one thing I'd like to find out, before I try to implement it, and that I haven't found yet: am I going to have to play games, to get it to back up to online storage, as opposed to tape? (I suppose I'm thinking tar, here, as "no games".) Is there some default setup for this scenario?
Never mind. More googling found it.
Anyone know if this will ever make it into one of the std. repos, or is there a lawsuit ongoing, or....?
There is not an ongoing lawsuit the best I can tell (there is a settled confidential one) .. BUT .. there is also nothing wrong with bacula charging for a license, especially in an enterprise environment (as long as they are playing nicely with all open source licenses, etc). I would therefore not necessarily expect to see a change in RHEL with respect to this issue. At least not specifically because of $$$ for licenses.
I have no inside information of any kind .. but going on the rules for EPEL (ie, not interfering with RHEL packages) and not necessarily seeing a problem for RHEL (at least RHEL 7) from a licensing perspective, I personally would expect that bareos MIGHT replace bacula at some point in future versions of Fedora and then that MIGHT be rolled into RHEL 8 and then make it into CentOS as part of that version.
Again, I have no direct knowledge, but that would be my expectation.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Looking in rawhide right now (where the latest things get rolled in) there is bacula an no bareos right now (which would be for Fedora 23)
On 07/19/2015 09:04 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I personally would expect that bareos MIGHT replace bacula at some point in future versions of Fedora and then that MIGHT be rolled into RHEL 8 and then make it into CentOS as part of that version.
My understanding is that at least one member of bareos attempted to retroactively rescind his copyright assignments to Bacula, and then copied source from Bacula to bareos in violation of copyright. Given that state of affairs, I think bareos is more likely to be considered a bad actor than Bacula.
-
Gordon Messmer -
Johnny Hughes -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Michael Mol