| Thank you, blixtra. My point is that Flatcar positioning is too cryptic and ambiguous for a lot of folks. People don't really get why they should pay for it, and that's a customer reachability issue, - a marketing problem, not an engineering one. I'm not saying that no one should use it, or it's a bad product, it's just takes too much time and effort to get into it, to understand how the pieces of the puzzle are tied together, and why. It's really great that you've picked up EOL'ed CoreOS services and developed your own. A visual component diagram, with a couple of license icons, and a simple graphical bare metal installer would've been really nice. > you can find all licenses for each release... Packages SBOM doesn't give a full answer regarding architecture, existing priorities (if there's any) and project structure: what had been adopted from CoreOS and why, and what had been developed from scratch, and why ? My primary complaint regarding "Pro" feature set, and further monetization, is that literally every growing business, with a cloud hosting provider, would target those, which makes them a necessity, not an extra option to choose from. FlatCar should've developed something innovative to differentiate the market a bit, and monetize complex enterprise deployments, instead of sabotaging onboarding for the new folks (customer reachability), with a flat fee and "unpublished builds", of a supposedly free Open Source product. At least that's the feedback I've been able to gather on my own, so far. > We just didn't release public builds of those. So, if I get it right, FlatCar monetization may crumble with a "Community build" that will package all the "Pro Features" and let people use 'em for free ? Not trying to devalue anything, but "just a viable CoreOS fork" doesn't make things magically self sustainable. It's all about the extra services that you can put on top, and real engineering problems that you may solve, for those who are willing to pay. People expect FlatCar Linux to be Free. |