Re: New release Bacularis 6.2.0

--===============7523319314422271383==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c555830652aa96ac"

--000000000000c555830652aa96ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My opinion is that most people should choose bacularis. My understanding is
that bacularis and baculum are both developed by Marcin Haba. My feel for
the issue is that bacularis has more features and distribution methods than
baculum. Bacularis is released and updated on a cadence that makes sense to
Marcin, not the release cadence used by bacula CE. Bacularis also used some
distribution methods that might not be considered in scope as part of
bacula CE. For example, some bacularis docker images can come with bacula
components included, to make adopting bacula as easy as possible. Of
course, bacularis is also available in many different package and
distribution types, without any bacula components included. Marcin is
heavily active on this list, and very responsive.

The single largest reason to select baculum in my mind is if your
organization has a preference for packages released from an "official"
project repo, or a more conservative preference for their software. I don't
know of any case where Marcin's software has proven immature or unreliable,
but I imagine some environments have biases in that direction just because
of an institutional attitude towards risk.

In an attempt to secure funding to support development, Marcin has limited
system package manager repository access to (one or two, can't recall)
hosts per registrant, and only major version releases. Paid supporters get
more installation hosts, and the latest versions, including minor releases.
Alternative installation methods are available, without those limitations.
I believe it is important to support our developers, so while I have been
unable to afford to contribute yet, I accept the inconvenience
understanding the reality of the situation.

Both bacularis and baculum rely on php. Additionally, if used to edit the
bacula configuration, both bacularis and baculum will reparse the
configuration, wiping out all the comments. This is not the fault of
bacularis and baculum, but is caused by the bacula config parser. I suspect
BAT probably uses the same parser, and has the same limitations. I want to
keep my comments, so only edit my config files using text editors.
Bacularis will not edit the bacula configuration without your consent,
though as far as I know there is no warning about comments.

For myself, I have used both, and overall prefer bacularis.


Robert Gerber
402-237-8692
[email protected]

On Mon, May 25, 2026, 1:33=E2=80=AFPM Phil Stracchino <[email protected]=
> wrote:

> On 5/25/26 01:59, Marcin Haba wrote:
> > I'm happy to announce that we have released version 6.2.0 of the
> > Bacularis web interface.
>
>
> So since it appears I am shortly going to be forced to switch to a web
> Bacula admin interface whether I want to or not=C2=B9, since it is clear =
BAT
> is de-facto abandoned=C2=B2 ... there are currently two, Baculum and
> Bacularis.  Can anyone offer any insights upon choosing between one and
> the other?  Or is it just "Try both and see which you like"?
>
>
>
> =C2=B9 I have never been a believer in the idea that everything need be, =
or
> even SHOULD be, a web application.  But this isn't the time or place for
> a discussion of all the reasons why.
>
> =C2=B2 I'd volunteer to take over maintaining BAT myself, if I labored un=
der
> the delusion that my coding skills were even remotely up to it, but I am
> not self-delusional enough to believe that they are.  I've never built
> anything using Qt and never learned C++.
>
>
> --
>    Phil Stracchino
>    Fenian House Publishing
>    [email protected]
>    [email protected]
>    Landline: +1.603.293.8485
>    Mobile:   +1.603.998.6958
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>

--000000000000c555830652aa96ac
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div>My opinion is that most people should choose bacular=
is. My understanding is that bacularis and baculum are both developed by Ma=
rcin Haba. My feel for the issue is that bacularis has more features and di=
stribution methods than baculum. Bacularis is released and updated on a cad=
ence that makes sense to Marcin, not the release cadence used by bacula CE.=
 Bacularis also used some distribution methods that might not be considered=
 in scope as part of bacula CE. For example, some bacularis docker images c=
an come with bacula components included, to make adopting bacula as easy as=
 possible. Of course, bacularis is also available in many different package=
 and distribution types, without any bacula components included. Marcin is =
heavily active on this list, and very responsive.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"au=
to"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The single largest reason to select baculum=
 in my mind is if your organization has a preference for packages released =
from an &quot;official&quot; project repo, or a more conservative preferenc=
e for their software. I don&#39;t know of any case where Marcin&#39;s softw=
are has proven immature or unreliable, but I imagine some environments have=
 biases in that direction just because of an institutional attitude towards=
 risk.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">In an attempt to =
secure funding to support development, Marcin has limited system package ma=
nager repository access to (one or two, can&#39;t recall) hosts per registr=
ant, and only major version releases. Paid supporters get more installation=
 hosts, and the latest versions, including minor releases. Alternative inst=
allation methods are available, without those limitations. I believe it is =
important to support our developers, so while I have been unable to afford =
to contribute yet, I accept the inconvenience understanding the reality of =
the situation.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Bot=
h bacularis and baculum rely on php. Additionally, if used to edit the bacu=
la configuration, both bacularis and baculum will reparse the configuration=
, wiping out all the comments. This is not the fault of bacularis and bacul=
um, but is caused by the bacula config parser. I suspect BAT probably uses =
the same parser, and has the same limitations. I want to keep my comments, =
so only edit my config files using text editors. Bacularis will not edit th=
e bacula configuration without your consent, though as far as I know there =
is no warning about comments.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">For myself, I have used both, and overall prefer bacularis.=C2=A0</di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div data-smartma=
il=3D"gmail_signature">Robert Gerber<br>402-237-8692<br><a href=3D"mailto:r=
[email protected]">[email protected]</a></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote =
gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, May 25=
, 2026, 1:33=E2=80=AFPM Phil Stracchino &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:phils@caerlle=
wys.net">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(20=
4,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 5/25/26 01:59, Marcin Haba wrote:<br>
&gt; I&#39;m happy to announce that we have released version 6.2.0 of the<b=
r>
&gt; Bacularis web interface.<br>
<br>
<br>
So since it appears I am shortly going to be forced to switch to a web <br>
Bacula admin interface whether I want to or not=C2=B9, since it is clear BA=
T <br>
is de-facto abandoned=C2=B2 ... there are currently two, Baculum and <br>
Bacularis.=C2=A0 Can anyone offer any insights upon choosing between one an=
d <br>
the other?=C2=A0 Or is it just &quot;Try both and see which you like&quot;?=
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
=C2=B9 I have never been a believer in the idea that everything need be, or=
 <br>
even SHOULD be, a web application.=C2=A0 But this isn&#39;t the time or pla=
ce for <br>
a discussion of all the reasons why.<br>
<br>
=C2=B2 I&#39;d volunteer to take over maintaining BAT myself, if I labored =
under <br>
the delusion that my coding skills were even remotely up to it, but I am <b=
r>
not self-delusional enough to believe that they are.=C2=A0 I&#39;ve never b=
uilt <br>
anything using Qt and never learned C++.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Phil Stracchino<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Fenian House Publishing<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=
=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a><br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=
=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a><br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Landline: +1.603.293.8485<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Mobile:=C2=A0 =C2=A0+1.603.998.6958<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bacula-users mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=
=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users" rel=
=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/=
lists/listinfo/bacula-users</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000c555830652aa96ac--


--===============7523319314422271383==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline


--===============7523319314422271383==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

--===============7523319314422271383==--