Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Friday 26 August 2005 00:22, Ludovic Strappazon wrote: Hi, I agree with Arno. There's also something wich hurts me : a small company with ~ 2 servers and 10 workstation would pay 100 $, and a General Electric, for example, would pay only 500 $ ! Well, 100 $ is given compared to commercial software, but it is not equitable in my opinion. With the system proposed by Arno, the contribution of the companies would be proportioned to their size by their use of contractors/consultants which would be the real contributors. Well, first any system of payment is generally not equitable because poor people cannot buy luxury homes, and because individuals receive something free while corporations pay. It is easy to imagine all kinds of systems, and it is possible to imagine systems that are more equitable. However, to make something more equitable generally increases the complexity, which makes it harder for the customer to understand what he/she should pay, and much harder for me to keep track of it all. If it isn't simple and relatively easily verifiable then I won't do it. I would prefer to let Bacula slowly die away rather than create a complicated nightmare of administration and frustration. A scheme that might be possible is one to which I provided a link the other day. It is based on the number of computers. But tell me how would anyone verify that? None of that is public record or information that companies have the habit of giving out. Gross revenues is something very simple, every company *must* compute it if nothing other than for taxes, and for governments, the department knows to the last cent their budget for the year (equivalent to gross revenues). Also, the status of contributor could give some voting rights to decide what are the priority items on the todolist... I'm not sure there will be any more voting, though I don't want to exclude it because I am looking for companies to find the resources or contribute for what they want. At the moment (this may change), I feel I have done my part for Bacula and would like to implement the projects that please me. If there are general funds available to encourage programmers, then perhaps voting would be appropriate. However, even the last voting we had was fairly complicated (I had to use a spreadsheet), so I cannot imagine having additional weightings per company/person the work of keeping track of all that and ensuring that it was properly entered on a spreadsheet would largely overwhelm me. Ludovic Strappazon Arno Lehmann a écrit : Hi, Kern Sibbald wrote: 2. Bacula Foundation 3. Bacula Funding Idea http://www.bacula.org/OpenSourceFunding.html Your comments are welcome. The ongoing discussion is interesting, but I thought of something a little different after reading your document. I'm not thinking about the Bacula Foundation questions, that's another decision, but about the funding problem. You want to charge the users (some of them), relying on fairness. I think this is not the best approach, especially since many corporate users (the companies, not the people!) will have difficulties paying for a license: Mainly, they get somehing they can also get for free - bacula binaries. (More below). They do not get something they want to pay for: Guaranteed support from Bacula, which means you (or, later, the Foudation). Concerning binaries: Would you want to provide binaries for all platforms people who pay for have? I hink this is not realistic... I know about bacula running on AIX, different flavours of Linux and BSDs, Sun, HP-UX, Tru64 (?), MacOS, Windows, and probably I forgot the other half. If you want people to pay for the binaries, you have to provide the ones they need - but you want to avoid becoming a software company. Now, what do companies who want to use bacula and need support do now? (Admittedly, I've got no such costumers, but who knows what happens when time goes by?) They pay a consultant, contractor, or however you call it, for a backup solution. So, my suggestion: Don't try to charge the end users, charge resellers and consultants. If you want to keep the GPL, which you want, I want, and other probably want, too, you might try the following. Bacula is a trademark, so nobody may use that name without your permission. So, when someone, for example I, want to sell bacula-based services or solutions, I probably want to stick the label Bacula Expert to my shirt. You (or the foundation) could sell such labels (and logo use - the bat _is_ nice!) For example, to call yourself an authorized bacula consultant (ABC, sounds good? ;-), you would need to contribute to bacula, and to pay, for example, 10% of your net revenue you make with bacula. You could leave to figure out the actual amount to the ABC - they should know what bacula is worth and probably be more likely to give
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Pal Dorogi wrote: 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. ;) I will stand in with Ryan:) Ditto. --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: I agree with this, but who is going to provide the support. Paying $500/year for development support would be easily justifiable, with support charges ramping up for those who actually need handholding, via an external contractor I'm sure there are companies on this list who could do contract handholding as a business model with a commission paid towards bacula development --- 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
RE: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
I'd also point out that this is the route that OpenAFS took. It seems to scale pretty well, with one or two commercial providers contributing funds and development hardware from support contract revenue. OpenAFS created a foundation to manage the contributions and hardware, thus providing an auditable accounting trail for how the contributed funds were used. OpenAFS is of comparable size and complexity to Bacula. --d b On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Pal Dorogi wrote: 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. ;) I will stand in with Ryan:) Ditto. --- 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
RE: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
I would like any such companies to step forward, because the idea here for Bacula is not to make money, but to cover out of pocket costs of development. I'm up for it. If a foundation controls the actual Bacula code ownership, it's fairly simple to have support providers contribute a reasonable amount to the foundation to get some type of approved seal, and if the foundation is non-profit, it's tax deductible in most countries. This model scales well, as it allows end users to contribute to local economies, and allows anyone to play if they want to w/o getting into competing with each other. It also allows different organizations to configure support packages to fit individual markets. --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 16:56, Alan Brown wrote: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: I agree with this, but who is going to provide the support. Paying $500/year for development support would be easily justifiable, with support charges ramping up for those who actually need handholding, via an external contractor I'm sure there are companies on this list who could do contract handholding as a business model with a commission paid towards bacula development Would it help if I called these development fees rather than license fees? One thing I will not do is to commit to support as long as there is no physical organization where someone or multiple persons would be responsible for the support. If you offer support, in my book, you must supply it. At this stage, this is not something I envision. -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
Hi, 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. ;) I will stand in with Ryan:) Regards, Pal --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 16:42, Alan Brown wrote: On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Pal Dorogi wrote: 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. ;) I will stand in with Ryan:) Ditto. I agree with this, but who is going to provide the support. I *barely* can keep up with things as they are so I cannot supply support, nor do I really want to. Once Bacula has some revenues, perhaps some people could be encouraged to provide support, but it is non-trivial to organize support if you don't have an office with employees, ... This is something I already did a few times in my life, and so someone else will need to do it now ... -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 16:41, Matthias Kurz wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: [...] If you want to read about my idea, please visit: http://www.bacula.org/OpenSourceFunding.html Your comments are welcome. Hi. Can you say with few words what the consequences of this are for (free) packaging projects like Debian, BSD ports, OpenPKG,... ? No change, because to the best of my knowledge none of these use Bacula binaries. If some Open Source project wants to re-distribute our binaries, we will need to discuss it. Are they allowed to continue building and distributing packages without any restriction ? Yes, of course. The source is open for everyone to use. Even companies and others can avoid any charges by building from source. Do they have to pay No. I think that was pretty well explained in the doc. or do they have to control whether the users of their packages will pay ? Yes. This was also discussed in the doc. -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 17:08 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: I would like any such companies to step forward, because the idea here for Bacula is not to make money, but to cover out of pocket costs of development. If others can make some money and at the same time help the project, so be it. I have no problem with people or organizations around Bacula earning their living, but I don't envision Bacula moving toward a MySQL type structure. Nothing is totally out of the question as I am open to discussion, but I just cannot see it for Bacula. There are some companies using Bacula as the basis if they're turn-key backup solution. They offer support on their solution -- Jesse Keating GameHouse -- Systems Engineer --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
What my superiors generally mean for software support is that if the product is broken, there will be some assurance that it will be fixed and allow us to do business. From what I understand, this already takes place fairly regularly -- if you report a bug, chances are it will get fixed (I see it all the time on the list). You could really rephrase payment for this type of support as payment that sustains the project; the two are very similar as paying for support/sustaining the project are both attempts to avoid getting dead-ended. We pay for this kind of support from HP -- up until recently we were using OmniBack for everything -- and started using Bacula when HP refused to support Solaris x86, and dragged their feet on support for Solaris 10 running on Sparc. The money paid to Bacula would already be a better value. _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |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 Wednesday 24 August 2005 16:56, Alan Brown wrote: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: I agree with this, but who is going to provide the support. Paying $500/year for development support would be easily justifiable, with support charges ramping up for those who actually need handholding, via an external contractor I'm sure there are companies on this list who could do contract handholding as a business model with a commission paid towards bacula development I would like any such companies to step forward, because the idea here for Bacula is not to make money, but to cover out of pocket costs of development. If others can make some money and at the same time help the project, so be it. I have no problem with people or organizations around Bacula earning their living, but I don't envision Bacula moving toward a MySQL type structure. Nothing is totally out of the question as I am open to discussion, but I just cannot see it for Bacula. --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: On Wednesday 24 August 2005 16:41, Matthias Kurz wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: [...] If you want to read about my idea, please visit: http://www.bacula.org/OpenSourceFunding.html Your comments are welcome. Hi. Can you say with few words what the consequences of this are for (free) packaging projects like Debian, BSD ports, OpenPKG,... ? No change, because to the best of my knowledge none of these use Bacula binaries. Well, when you mean http://www.bacula.org/OpenSourceFunding.html; with the doc. I did read it before i posted :-) And the last sentence in the paragraph Fee structure reads: ... By the way, a source rpm would probably be included in the binary license since it is also a binary even if it does contain the source. If some Open Source project wants to re-distribute our binaries, we will need to discuss it. Are they allowed to continue building and distributing packages without any restriction ? Yes, of course. The source is open for everyone to use. Even companies and others can avoid any charges by building from source. Sorry, when i pester you too much :) Will there be restrictions in the _distribution_ of source rpms or the like ? (mk) -- Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47 Im prämotorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 17:31, Matthias Kurz wrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: On Wednesday 24 August 2005 16:41, Matthias Kurz wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: [...] If you want to read about my idea, please visit: http://www.bacula.org/OpenSourceFunding.html Your comments are welcome. Hi. Can you say with few words what the consequences of this are for (free) packaging projects like Debian, BSD ports, OpenPKG,... ? No change, because to the best of my knowledge none of these use Bacula binaries. Well, when you mean http://www.bacula.org/OpenSourceFunding.html; with the doc. I did read it before i posted :-) And the last sentence in the paragraph Fee structure reads: ... By the way, a source rpm would probably be included in the binary license since it is also a binary even if it does contain the source. Yes, but none of those organizations or any other packager uses our source rpm. Also, please note very carefully the word probably in the above sentence -- that means, I am unsure about what I am saying or undecided. If some Open Source project wants to re-distribute our binaries, we will need to discuss it. Are they allowed to continue building and distributing packages without any restriction ? Yes, of course. The source is open for everyone to use. Even companies and others can avoid any charges by building from source. Sorry, when i pester you too much :) Will there be restrictions in the _distribution_ of source rpms or the like ? (mk) -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 17:40, David Boyes wrote: I would like any such companies to step forward, because the idea here for Bacula is not to make money, but to cover out of pocket costs of development. I'm up for it. Could you explain in more detail what you feel you could do? If a foundation controls the actual Bacula code ownership, Yes, that is the idea -- at least in the long run. That would avoid any unpleasant surprises if something happens to me. To be 100% clear, there is a certain element of control here that needs to be clarified. I've devoted almost 6 years of my life 10-12 hours a day to Bacula, and I need to feel comfortable that once it is transferred, it is not simply -- bye bye Kern. This is one of the advantages of doing a Foundation in Switzerland, and one of my fears of doing it in the US. it's fairly simple to have support providers contribute a reasonable amount to the foundation to get some type of approved seal, and if the foundation is non-profit, it's tax deductible in most countries. Yes, this is a nice idea, and it would probably go over much better than a binary license fee. This model scales well, as it allows end users to contribute to local economies, and allows anyone to play if they want to w/o getting into competing with each other. It also allows different organizations to configure support packages to fit individual markets. Yes, this is where I hope it all goes -- or I should say continues going. -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 18:12 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: Yes, but none of those organizations or any other packager uses our source rpm. Also, please note very carefully the word probably in the above sentence -- that means, I am unsure about what I am saying or undecided. Ok, but somebody (like myself) could create their own srpm from your source and then provide both the srpm and binary rpms built from that for things like Fedora Extras and CentOS Extras? -- Jesse Keating GameHouse -- Systems Engineer --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 19:53, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 18:12 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: Yes, but none of those organizations or any other packager uses our source rpm. Also, please note very carefully the word probably in the above sentence -- that means, I am unsure about what I am saying or undecided. Ok, but somebody (like myself) could create their own srpm from your source and then provide both the srpm and binary rpms built from that for things like Fedora Extras and CentOS Extras? Yes, anyone can create anything from the source. I'm not sure about the requirements for Fedora Extras and CentOS Extras. I'm not trying to restrict anyone any more than GPL and Copyrights do, I'm just concerned to see that Bacula will continue when I'm no longer here (hopefully, I'm concerned about this *long* before that time ... ). I would sure like to see Bacula in them, but I'm not prepared even to *read* the *very* long rules that Fedora Extras has, much less run rpmlint, and all the other stuff they want done. I'm not complaining about their requirements because it is a very reasonable way to ensure good quality rpms, but I just don't have the time. -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 20:53 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: Yes, anyone can create anything from the source. Ok, cool. I'm not sure about the requirements for Fedora Extras and CentOS Extras. Yeah, wasn't questioning that, I'm somewhat familiar w/ them. I'm not trying to restrict anyone any more than GPL and Copyrights do, I'm just concerned to see that Bacula will continue when I'm no longer here (hopefully, I'm concerned about this *long* before that time ... ). Excellent planning. I would sure like to see Bacula in them, but I'm not prepared even to *read* the *very* long rules that Fedora Extras has, much less run rpmlint, and all the other stuff they want done. I'm not complaining about their requirements because it is a very reasonable way to ensure good quality rpms, but I just don't have the time. I may devote some time into this, however my time is pretty taken up with Legacy and with a book Im writing, so we'll see (: -- Jesse Keating GameHouse -- Systems Engineer --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 21:18, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 20:53 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: Yes, anyone can create anything from the source. Ok, cool. I'm not sure about the requirements for Fedora Extras and CentOS Extras. Yeah, wasn't questioning that, I'm somewhat familiar w/ them. I'm not trying to restrict anyone any more than GPL and Copyrights do, I'm just concerned to see that Bacula will continue when I'm no longer here (hopefully, I'm concerned about this *long* before that time ... ). Excellent planning. I would sure like to see Bacula in them, but I'm not prepared even to *read* the *very* long rules that Fedora Extras has, much less run rpmlint, and all the other stuff they want done. I'm not complaining about their requirements because it is a very reasonable way to ensure good quality rpms, but I just don't have the time. I may devote some time into this, That would be nice. however my time is pretty taken up with Legacy and with a book Im writing, so we'll see (: Good luck with your book. From what I understand, it is a lot of work to write one. Hopefully if you do, it will provide you with a bit of financial freedom. -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 22:05 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: That would be nice. however my time is pretty taken up with Legacy and with a book Im writing, so we'll see (: If I can't get to it myself, I'll toss it up there for somebody else who wants to help out. Good luck with your book. From what I understand, it is a lot of work to write one. Hopefully if you do, it will provide you with a bit of financial freedom. I've techedited books in the past (Fedora/Red Hat Linux Bibles), and written content for some other books in the same series. I'm excited to write an entire book on my own (well with a co-author also first timer) but it may be a year or so before the dang thing is completed. Other authors in the field recommend I go flip burgers, it pays better ): Thankfully I'm not really in it for the $$, more because I really want to see this book get written. -- Jesse Keating GameHouse -- Systems Engineer --- 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula status
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
