Mark, Mark Nienberg wrote: > Sourceforge shows that your version 2.0.3 for fedora 5 had: > > 312 downloads for the client, > 221 downloads for mysql, > 130 downloads for postgre, and > 140 downloads for sqlite > for a total of 803 (combining i386 and x86_64).
But these RPMs were built in April 2007. FC5 was officially supported until the end of June. I think (hope) that most users did upgrade when noticing the EOL. Anyway, I would like to see more FC5 users to speak up before spending the time to build rpms for an out-dated Fedora version. > I don't think it is at all unusual to have a dedicated backup server on a > protected network running an EOL version of fedora. While I think that this situation is not unusual, I really have mixed feelings when thinking about this: The backup server gets ALL your important data and can access everything (unless you use client encryption). This would be a nice target for an attacker. Therefore I really recommend using secure operating systems. In my experience it is quite easy migrating a host which does only backups to CentOS! fs ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
