bup vs linux-timemachine
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted backup & recovery options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
bup
Efficient backup system based on the git packfile format
VS
linux-timemachine
rsync-based Time Machine style backups for Linux and macOS
| Feature | bup | linux-timemachine |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | LGPL-2.1 | MIT |
| Language | Python | Shell |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | binary | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,337 | ★ 840 |
| First released | 2010 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Time Machine | Apple Time Machine |
Why pick each one
Choose bup if…
- Released under the LGPL-2.1 license
- Mature project with 7.3k GitHub stars
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is bup or linux-timemachine better?
Neither is universally better. bup has the larger community, while linux-timemachine is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are bup and linux-timemachine free and open-source?
Yes. bup is licensed under LGPL-2.1 and linux-timemachine under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run bup and linux-timemachine with Docker?
bup: check the project docs for container support. linux-timemachine: check the project docs for container support.