> Am 28.01.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Peter Eckel <lists at eckel-edv.de>: > > Hi Alessandro, > >> Why many users skip bacula? It is powerfull and very stable. It is very difficult to setup but if you know how it works it is simple. 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). > I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos. > > There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste. Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average): https://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/bacula-announce/ > Obviously I wasn't alone with this, because roughly at that time Bareos was forked from Bacula. > > <http://www.admin-magazine.com/Archive/2013/17/New-features-in-the-Bareos-Bacula-fork> > > Essentially, Bareos is an improved (at least IMHO) fork of Bacula, and unlike Bacuka it's fully open source. 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). 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. Maybe a good reason to start a Backup SIG which provides a repository with current bacula packages? -- LF