On Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 8:22 PM Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: On Wed, July 15, 2015 7:05 pm, Michael Mol wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 10:37 AM <m.roth at 5-cent.us> 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.