Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pgbackrest is no longer being maintained

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 245 posts

Re: Pgbackrest is no longer being maintained

#201

Post by SwellJoe »

briffle wrote: post #164
hosh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I learned about being a part of an ecosystem: if you want it, you need to support it and help it stay alive. That applies to local shops as it does open source projects.

The project has never even had a donation button on its page, only a link with a few sponsors.

The effort to setup donations is almost always more trouble than the donations that result are worth. Better spent looking for a job, or working on a commercial project that will make money. People simply don't donate to open source projects at a level that matters.

I've been working on Open Source software for 30+ years. There's no money in it, if your idea for making money is "accept donations". I don't like it, but it's a fact. If you want to make money, you have to make something that isn't free (and even then, if you give away the most valuable parts, as in "open core" licensing, you probably still won't make enough money to make the development worth it).

When I was young and driven by idealism and optimism, I assumed that with enough users I'd be able to ring the cash register somehow. Turns out not so much. We got the users, the money never came. There are a few outliers, but there probably aren't a lot of opportunities to found a Red Hat today.

Re: Pgbackrest is no longer being maintained

#202

Post by 2ndorderthought »

Chris2048 wrote: post #200
2ndorderthought wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be great if github or someone did something to support licenses like this. So procurement was more like a cloud spend. Companies could put caps on the monthly spend for the projects they use. Organizations should be used to paying for products from individuals just like how they do from megacorporations.

Would a third party 'productising' FOSS be acceptable to the FOSS community? for example, adding support, bug fixes, corp-friendly licencing and pricing models, private code/package repos, code/package signing, etc. Providing biz ppl to be available for meetings, legal protection, PII, etc. To foster goodwill, they could even send some of the profit back to the original maintainer, ala pikapods: https://news.ycombina…

I'm not suggesting productizing but if someone skimmed 0.5-5% off of some of my packages licenses and gave me the rest without me having to do anything I would be happy with that. I think the important thing would be, customers would likely expect less support so licenses should be cheaper.

People who don't want tiered licenses could definitely just mit it and walk away of course.

I do like the idea of paying back the original maintainers otherwise people could sandbag projects to fork them later.

Re: Pgbackrest is no longer being maintained

#203

Post by loloquwowndueo »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #99

do not yell at me, but... this is where genAI may be useful. what if, bare with me, what if, after a certain amount of time, a certain amount of "requests", a code library can be given to a genAI to maintain; no improvements, no extra features, just bug fixes? This could continue until either someone picks it up, or the open source solution becomes irrelevant, not enough "requests". Yes, lots of details to work out.

*bear, not bare.

Re: Pgbackrest is no longer being maintained

#204

Post by jrochkind1 »

didgetmaster wrote: post #52
2ndorderthought wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish projects like this didn't fall through the cracks and continued to be funded. The struggles of OSS are too real.

The project is being abandoned because the maintainer is tired of working for free. They said that they hoped someone would fork it, change the name, and pick up where it was left off. Why would anyone do that? If the person who was most passionate about it for over a dozen years has given up because it was never worth the trouble; what fool would think things will be different going forward? This is the curse of OSS…

They said they imagined it would (I read as "might") be forked, and if it were, please don't use their name for it.

I don't think they are "hoping" someone else will take it, exactly. They're just done with it. That's how I read it, they liked working on it, but it wasn't financially sustainable, the project is now over, and my reading is they are sad about it.

Re: Pgbackrest is no longer being maintained

#206

Post by sgarland »

briffle wrote: post #167
sgarland wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used barman on somewhat large-ish DBs (30+ TB), and had no complaints with it. I am a DBRE, if that holds any weight.

We recently moved from Barman to pgBackrest. Our main complaints with barman were that incremental backups utilized hardlinks. Which was great, we could have our 7TB database backed up, and the next day, only 20GB in changes. But, when replicating that data to cloud storage, there is no concept of hardlinks, so now we had to push 14TB to cloud storage. Also, at least last time we looked a while back, file compression…

We just piped the backups through pigz for compression; rapidgzip also exists for parallelized decompression (or any other compression algorithm you’d like to use, of course).

Re: Pgbackrest is no longer being maintained

#207

Post by film42 »

faangguyindia wrote: post #82
freakynit wrote: post #23

So sad to see this happening.. I had just last year prepared a detailed guide for reliable postgre backups to local volume as well as cloud storage, using pgBackRest, for my own projects.. pgBackRest have worked so well for me https://github.com/freakynit/postgre-backup-and-restore-guid... Thanks to the author for all the time and effort he put into this project..

One thing people are not taking into account is that many developers now have less time and are working a lot more because AI makes it seem it should be possible to hit those deadlines, etc. Also, many programers have spent their entire funds on tokens, so neither are left with extra money nor time.

Acquisitions change priorities and layoffs put the squeeze on people. AI is for sure in the mix there, but open source decay is a result of no room in budgets for anything but maximizing revenue.

Re: Pgbackrest is no longer being maintained

#208

Post by jhardcastle »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #46
jhardcastle wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comparison is fallacious too, I think. Something burning down is a tragedy, beyond anyone's control. It's also possible to love something for its beauty, and be sad that a globally historic monument suffered such an act of god that the irreplaceable art and craftsmanship is gone forever. Something closing down, perhaps because there was not enough money to sustain its continued operation, when tens of thousands…

Alright, take a park closing then. Can you be sad about that if you haven't personally raised money to finance the park?

At what point did OP say, "you're only allowed to be sad if you contributed"?

OP pointed out that many people stated they were sad. OP also pointed out it's likely few of those who were sad also contributed money. For a project whose maintainer said, essentially, "I can't keep doing this for free," the connection for most is obvious: "we (individuals and corporations) need to keep paying for the things we use and love if we want to keep the things we use and love."

OP did not say, "don't complain to me if you didn't personally try to save it."

Post reply on HN