Am 16.07.2015 um 02:22 schrieb Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>: > > 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! 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