I have been using Duplicati 2.x for years and have been very happy with. I have kept a watchful eye on the project and am very happy to see it making big strides with the new company (congrats!), the website revamp and the upgrade to .NET 8.
One thing that does strike me as odd is the version naming. When Duplicati 2.x first came out, it was indeed new, so the beta label was warranted. The version is now 6 years old though, and it is the only version that the website directs you to. The 1.x version cannot really be found anymore and is practically considered deprecated, if Iām not mistaken. Given this and the recent upgrades and changes, wouldnāt it make sense to move to a stable release? I know it is not ābetaā quality software, because I have ran it for years without issues. The new company makes it even stranger: nobody in their right mind would pay for ābetaā software, especially not with something as important as backup software. I think this quote from 0ver.org sums up my thoughts quite well:
āIf your project has made the ZeroVer list, it definitely meets consensus criteria for having a public release. Youāve built something useful and great, and continuing to advertise prerelease status hurts adoption, especially for adopters trying to convince others that your software is as dependable as practice shows.ā
The automated offering of 2.1.0.2 actually began two days ago, so keep an eye on forum.
People who found it early found issues early, but its large-scale rollout is just starting now.
Thereās nothing like a large-scale test to flush out the bugs that smaller scale test missed.
Yes, it has not been maintained for a long time. I still have installer links if needed
Very true, and I agree fully.
The reason why it has not been labelled āstableā was due to a few stability issues that would crop up now and then. I believe we have covered those that caused failing backups with 2.1.0.2, so I intend to release the current beta version as the first official stable, but there are a few reported issues around timeouts, FTP backend and MacOS packages that I would like to fix before releasing a stable version.
Once this is up, the idea is to get into a regular release cycle like most other software, and not stay in perpetual beta.
The idea is to cherry-pick the small fixes from the current canary build (meaning certainly not all of the changes) into a new beta build (2.1.0.3). After this has been released, a stable build (2.1.0.4) will be made from that beta (potentially with other smaller cherry-picked changes).
