From my experience, and I'm sure someone's already said this... the
best was to get money, at least where I work, is to consider the money a
support contract. My superiors like running software without a support
contract even less than they like paying for things. ;)
---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _
|Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | | Ryan Novosielski - User Support Spec. III
|$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 973/972.0922 (2-0922)
\__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.| IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630
Kern Sibbald wrote:
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 10:51, Arno Lehmann wrote:
Hello,
nice to see see you all busy again :-)
After my vacation, I already upgraded to 1.37.36 to continue testing.
And I even skimmed the heap of list mail.
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Hello,
...
2. I've looked into the idea of creating a Bacula Foundation, and if done
here in Switzerland where I live, it will cost about $2000-3000 to create
and $2000-3000 per year for administrative fees (accounting, audit, ...)
to run. At this point, this is not feasible.
Actually I'd guess that raising a few thousand dollars a year doesn't
sound unreasonable, given the user base bacula has.
How about first trying to implement some of the necessary
infrastructure, like setting up an account for donations, trying to
raise money by giving talks, etc., and the like?
You mean without changing the binary license?
Corporations need an incentive otherwise most cannot give because the guy at
the top with signature authority is worried about financial performance and
does understand or trust Open Source. I'm trying to give them the incentive
without the "enforcement" part.
In any case, I am going to set up the structure under my name in the next
couple of days. As soon as a longer term solution is available, I'll
transfer it.
Anyway, it's your time (the biggest part at least), and you've got to
decide what you do with it - I think we all can't complain ;-)
...
If you want to read about my idea, please visit:
http://www.bacula.org/OpenSourceFunding.html Your comments are welcome.
I'll definitely read and perhaps comment - later.
4. Bacula release status: I grossly underestimated the complexity of
implementing multiple drive autochanger support, so the development
version (currently 1.37.36) is not yet ready. It will most likely be
about another month before it can be released (another week or two of
fixes and at least two weeks of running without any major bugs). I
mentioned this in the beta release announcement today, but bring it up
again as background for the next item ...
Anyway, thanks for the newer beta. In the last months, it got pretty
obvious that the current development was becoming more and more
difficult, and I - and most other users, I assume - greatly appreciate
your efforts.
5. Future Bacula development: as I see it, the Bacula project is
undergoing a major change at the moment.
First, more and more features are being contributed rather than being
developed by me. This is very desirable and is a good sign for the future
of Bacula. My thanks go out to everyone who has contributed to this
project, be it by a code submission, preparing a platform release,
documentation, answering a question on the mailing list, ...
In the case of the increasing number of code submissions, it is requiring
quite a bit of adapting on my part: more time spent helping submitters,
looking at their code, integrating it, testing it, documenting it, less
time for me to program ... This isn't at all a complaint, rather the
contrary -- relief that others are helping code. It will be interesting
to see where it leads to and how it gets there.
Mee too!
:-)
Seriously, though, what I observed during the last year was indeed a
shift from implementing and fixing a network backup solution towards
developing it into something suitable for larger installations with more
sophisticated needs.
I'ts fun taking part in it, even if it's only a small part.
I wouldn't call what you have done a small part :-)
Second, I'm hearing more and more requests for me to attend meetings and
give presentations. This is something that I will devote more time to
next year beginning in April.
Glad to hear it, since I think that bacula has reached a state where it
some "propaganda" seems ok.
...
This modification may result in smaller more incremental releases
containing only one or two features rather than the larger releases we
have seen in the past -- perhaps something similar to how Linux
development has evolved (purely coincidental).
This at least should make bug fixing easier, I hope. Overall, assuming
enough developers participate, it might even lead to a faster
development of new features.
Well, and now back to stressing 1.37.36...
Arno
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
