besmirching their reputation on moral grounds doesn’t do anyone any favors.
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”.
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?
After all Proxmox jumps through hoops when managing LXC containers as they simply retrofitted both their kernel and pve-container / pct that were originally developed to manage OpenVZ containers.
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.
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?
Mostly because we’re on a transition period from LXD into Incus. If you grab Debian 12 today you’ll get LXD 5.0.2 LTS from their repositories that is supported both by the Debian team and the Incus team. Most online documentation and help on the subject can also be found under “LXD” more easily. Everyone should be running Incus once Debian 13 comes along with it, but until then the most common choice is LXD from Debian 12 repositories. I was never, and will never suggest anyone to install/run LXD from Canonical.
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.
I won’t say I don’t get your point, I get it, I kinda pushed it a bit there and you’re right. Either way what stops Proxmox from doing the same thing BCM/ESXi did now? We’re talking about a for profit company and the alternative Incus sits behind the Linux Containers initiative that is effectively funded by multiple parties.
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.
Yes, TrueNAS can be interesting for a lot of people and they also seem to want to move into the container use-case with TrueNAS Scale but that one is still more broken than useful.
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.
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”.
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?
After all Proxmox jumps through hoops when managing LXC containers as they simply retrofitted both their kernel and
pve-container/pctthat were originally developed to manage OpenVZ containers.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.
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.
Mostly because we’re on a transition period from LXD into Incus. If you grab Debian 12 today you’ll get LXD 5.0.2 LTS from their repositories that is supported both by the Debian team and the Incus team. Most online documentation and help on the subject can also be found under “LXD” more easily. Everyone should be running Incus once Debian 13 comes along with it, but until then the most common choice is LXD from Debian 12 repositories. I was never, and will never suggest anyone to install/run LXD from Canonical.
I won’t say I don’t get your point, I get it, I kinda pushed it a bit there and you’re right. Either way what stops Proxmox from doing the same thing BCM/ESXi did now? We’re talking about a for profit company and the alternative Incus sits behind the Linux Containers initiative that is effectively funded by multiple parties.
Yes, TrueNAS can be interesting for a lot of people and they also seem to want to move into the container use-case with TrueNAS Scale but that one is still more broken than useful.
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.