CKAN 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?
CKAN
Make open data websites
VS
linux-timemachine
rsync-based Time Machine style backups for Linux and macOS
| Feature | CKAN | linux-timemachine |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Python | Shell |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 5,088 | ★ 840 |
| First released | 2026 | 2017 |
| Replaces | — | Apple Time Machine |
Why pick each one
Choose CKAN if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- Mature project with 5.1k GitHub stars
- Written in Python
- Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is CKAN or linux-timemachine better?
Neither is universally better. CKAN 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 CKAN and linux-timemachine free and open-source?
Yes. CKAN is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and linux-timemachine under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run CKAN and linux-timemachine with Docker?
CKAN: check the project docs for container support. linux-timemachine: check the project docs for container support.