On the website of CloneDeploy it says
Theopenem simply expands upon CloneDeploy while still being free and open source
That is kind of an overstatement, is it not?
-
"simply". Simple would have been if you implemented the name change as part of an upgrade. Instead, I need to completely reinstall from scratch and then dreadfully migrate all images, just to have the same product?. Why did you not consider an upgrade path that migrates all images from CD to theopenem? Are all CD users supposed to figure this one out on their own? Not simple.
-
"expands". How did you expand the project by removing support for Linux hosting environments and providing less detailed documentation?
This move really bugs me because CloneDeploy used to be an awesome FOSS project and the only viable one besides FOG.
Now I regret not choosing a different, commercial product with real long-term support, because I'm stuck with an old un-maintainable server which I need to migrate away from.
By axing CloneDeploy you demonstrated that you don't focus on long-term stability in this project, which reduces my likelihood to consider contracting your commercial support for your "new" product.
Thank you for the years of CloneDeploy, but not thank you for this business decision that produces unnecessary workload for every CloneDeploy user.
As constructive criticism, please consider:
- Offering scripts for migrating CD installations to theopenem. Un-break your upgrade path.
- Implement proper Linux server support.
- Ensure a stable upgrade path between versions, favorably in the form of continious integration via Docker images.
With Kind Regards