I’d expected this but it still sucks.

  • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    As long as the source code is freely available, that’s entirely congruent with GPL, which is one of the most stringent licenses. You can lay a lot of criticism on their business practices, and I would not deploy this on my home server, but it haven’t seen any evidence that they’re infringing any licenses.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I beg to differ. Building a business model around open source is tricky at best. There’s always tradeoffs, and their model means they have less support from the broader community as their project will be used less. It’s their choice to make and I don’t see anything questionable with it. It’s one of the stated goals of GPL to not impede business with open source.

        Proxmox isn’t making you sign away rights granted by the license - that to me is questionable legally and downright bullshit morally. Again, what they’re doing is fine, even if it makes their product undesirable to me.

        Thank you for putting the word out on Incus as an alternative to Proxmox, one that is likely to fit the needs of many that are ill served by Proxmox. But besmirching their reputation on moral grounds doesn’t do anyone any favors. It ends up soiling the reputation of Incus as a side effect, even.

          • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not sure if you came across my other comment about Proxmox (here) but unfortunately it isn’t just “besmirching their reputation on moral grounds”.

            I have, and was based on that I wrote what I did. I still think those choices are business decisions that are not against open source, neither the letter or the spirit of the licenses. It seems you disagree.

            Also, I would like to add that a LOT of people use Proxmox to run containers and those containers are currently LXC containers. If one is already running LXC containers why not have the full experience and move to LXD/Incus that was made by the same people and designed specifically to manage LXC and later on VMs?

            Why not, indeed? I thanked you before for raising awareness for that. Please keep up. It’s really the “Proxmox is fake open source” discourse I take issue with. I think it would be more helpful if you said “and you get all security updates for free with Incus, unlike Proxmox.” It’s a clear, factual message, devoid of a value judgement. People don’t like to be told what to think.

            Also it’s weird that you take issue with Proxmox but not LXD. From what I read in the Incus initial announcement, what Canonical did with LXD is barely legal and definitely against the spirit of its license. Incus is a drop in replacement. Why even bring LXD up?

            And, as far as micro to small installations go, TrueNAS is another alternative that plays well with open source (AFAIK). Unlikely to be used specifically for VMs or containers, but it’s a popular choice for home servers for a reason.

            To sum it up: I’m trying to provide some constructive criticism of your approach. But I’m just an internet stranger so… You do you. I hope you think about it, though.

              • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                What stops Proxmox is the same thing “stopping” Canonical. The next day there’ll be a fork and anyone can start selling pro support for it, further encroaching in their business model.

                Regarding TrueNAS, there’s nothing broken. You can can sideload both containers and VMs. You can say it’s inconvenient, but again, it’ll be suited for some people, not so much for others.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        “How dare this business try to make money?!!”

        Open source still has to exist within the framework of capitalism. I am all for building the fully automated luxury gay space communist utopia where people just build awesome software and release it for free all the time without ever having to worry about paying the bills (seriously, I would encourage every open-source advocate to think about how much more awesome stuff we would have if universal basic income was a thing), but that is simply not the world we’re in right now. They need to keep the lights on, and that means advertising their paid services.