@timconsidine actually depends on their licensing model. We are not at all against paid apps delivered through Cloudron. I understand the need to make a living as a small team pouring your time into a great project. Although in this case I guess, the packaging initiative should come from the upstream app from now on. Of course we are happy to assist, it still looks like a solid good app 🙂
@ccfu I'm working with Espo daily now and I can say that I don't think anyone needs the Sales Pack, as that's easy enough to reproduce. I don't really use any of the Advanced pack stuff as most of that can be reproduced in Functions. The other stuff you can pretty much do without too unless you're an enterprise, in which case it is very cheap. The ease of working with the API is also an important consideration for me.
I was a fan of SugarCRM over a decade ago, that became SuiteCRM. I'm sure you can get similar results out of it, but the fundamental framework will just always be slower, and there's nothing anyone can do about that than use something else.
I wouldn't object to it being an option with Cloudron, to make it easier for more people to compare, I just don't know if that's justification enough for competing attention to build apps that do fill feature gaps.
Having a real hate / love relation with Cloudron...
The convenience of having all apps securely managed under one roof is simply fantastic.
That said, we installed Cloudron to eliminate time spend setting up simple, open-source applications - but many times we end up trying to find workarounds installing certain dependencies needed for 3rd party plugins from installed Cloudron apps...
I'm really hoping they'll allow a bit more control within the containers in the future..