Fix for wording around Cloudron
All checks were successful
continuous-integration/drone/push Build is passing

This commit is contained in:
Luke Murphy 2021-03-01 13:10:27 +01:00
parent 5891093a60
commit 6b6853be22
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 5E2EF5A63E3718CC

View File

@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ As time has gone on, though, we've had a few moments when we questioned our reli
- Core parts of the system officially [became proprietary] software. This rang alarm bells for us about its long-term future.
- The work to package the available apps is done [entirely by the Cloudron team itself] and doesn't re-use the existing rich ecosystem of libre software packaging work that's already being done. This seems like a big risk. If Cloudron UG, the company goes under, someone or some entity would need to take on that laborious, technically specific and non-transferable packaging work or we'd quickly be leaving ourselves and our clients running outdated and unmaintained software.
- The work to package the available apps is done [entirely by the Cloudron team itself] and doesn't re-use the existing rich ecosystem of libre software packaging work that's already being done. This seems like a big risk. If Cloudron UG, the company behind Cloudron, goes under, someone or some entity would need to take on that laborious, technically specific and non-transferable packaging work or we'd quickly be leaving ourselves and our clients running outdated and unmaintained software.
- Some aspects of Cloudron's architecture were causing problems. Requiring each app to be a single Docker image makes common application deployment configurations impossible (as far as we know, nobody has yet managed to get Mediawiki's visual editor working in Cloudron, for example).