What's coming in Cloudron 9
-
- Deprecate Ubuntu 20.04 support - we won't remove support yet, but you will get a notification that support is going away soon. I think Jul 2025 is when Ubuntu 20.04 reaches EOL.
- UI Redesign - this is a biggie and requires much work. We already started migrating to vuejs 3 months ago. We will also take this opportunity to fix the navigation in our UI. Currently, the whole navigation is crammed under the profile menu.
- App Level (Disk) Storage Limit - This will let you size the maximum disk storage an app can use. Currently, the plan is to add support for XFS Project Quota (supported on all the cloud block storage devices) and also a loopback device based backend. Maybe in future, we will add a LVM based backend as well.
- Backup integrity - store size and checksum of backups. Also provide a way to "verify" backup integrity in the remote.
- Show backup/restore progress
- Multiple Backup Destinations
- Granular Backup schedule
-
P potemkin_ai referenced this topic
-
Any chance to remove Cloudron in the parts where it won't be whitelabeled?
-
G girish pinned this topic
-
@potemkin_ai not for Cloudron 9 at least. I think that change also has product/market implications, we haven't researched how many need that feature.
-
@girish said in What's coming in Cloudron 9:
Multiple Backup Destinations
Granular Backup scheduleReally looking forward to these!
-
@potemkin_ai For fwiw, I immediately distrust companies passing off other's tech as their own. I'm not sure to what degree you refer to when you ask for whitelabeling. If you sell services someone and they understand you are using Cloudron (who in turn is using other available software), and the whitelabeling you mean refers to them paying to be able to put their Company Name where they need it (because Cloudron licencing and tech has made that possible)... is one thing. But, it's another to present yourself as though whatever-makes-it-run has been made by your own hands and not by the Cloudron team, and customers buy your web service because it's made by your own hands, and they still get to put their own company name on it because you allow them too... that's sneaky. Deceptive. Companies that do this are not trustworthy.
Let me emphasize that I'm using the 3rd person "you", and not specifically you @potemkin_ai, especially since I don't know your approach. I'm just sharing my own personal perspective as consumer.
A life lived in fear is a life half-lived
-
@scooke Let's say you run a bakery, you buy your milled flour and all the necessary ingredients from others and then the bakery/you claim all the glory. Do you consider this deceptive?
Also, isn't Cloudron built and makes use of other tech in the platform and in the offered apps? I know Cloudron contributes back to upstream projects financially and code wise, but is that "enough"? Same applies to us all as users using all these open source apps without pulling our own weight. This topic is too complex for a simple whitelabling request, but I believe I made my point.
I'm not a reseller, and I don't consider it deceptive because at the end of the day, the company I'm paying is 100% responsible to troubleshoot my services. As long as the original creator offers/allows whitelabling and the reseller didn't "hack" anything or break any ToS, then it's all cool. Branding has to be consistent for a successful business.
-
@scooke which means you won't be a customer. And since you are on that forum - it's just another confirmation.
Unless I'm stating I've build something on my own and instead, I just rewrapped Cloudron - it's bad, yes.
As long as I'm selling platform services, for example: "Potemkin & Co Services" - I'm perfectly fine.
And usually resellers pay a bit more for that: not too much, as the platform keeper holds the licenses and benefits from higher licenses use, but certainly higher than to the end users, as I'm selling something, that eases my work.And yeah, when you access gmail, you are not accessing Linux+Kubernetes+Go/C/Python Engine with JS+Chrome/Firefox - you are just accessing / using e-mail.
-
@scooke said in What's coming in Cloudron 9:
@potemkin_ai For fwiw, I immediately distrust companies passing off other's tech as their own. I'm not sure to what degree you refer to when you ask for whitelabeling. If you sell services someone and they understand you are using Cloudron (who in turn is using other available software), and the whitelabeling you mean refers to them paying to be able to put their Company Name where they need it (because Cloudron licencing and tech has made that possible)... is one thing. But, it's another to present yourself as though whatever-makes-it-run has been made by your own hands and not by the Cloudron team, and customers buy your web service because it's made by your own hands, and they still get to put their own company name on it because you allow them too... that's sneaky. Deceptive. Companies that do this are not trustworthy.
Let me emphasize that I'm using the 3rd person "you", and not specifically you @potemkin_ai, especially since I don't know your approach. I'm just sharing my own personal perspective as consumer.
Adding to what @humptydumpty explained, consider the following scenario as a use case:
You are responsible for IT administration in a small organization, so you set up various services via a cloudron instance. But now you have to explain to people you are onboarding (in addition to all the stuff and how it works) what cloudron is (good luck with that) and what it has to do with the cloud you are using.
Whitelabeling solves this by not adding extra terms to user facing interfaces (i.e. log in with Cloudron).
-
@girish multihost not included in CR 9?
-
@potemkin_ai said in What's coming in Cloudron 9:
Unless I'm stating I've build something on my own and instead, I just rewrapped Cloudron - it's bad, yes.
This is what I'm getting at.
The bakery example is hilarious! I supposed it only could be applicable if I either don't know anything about baking, or the bakery refuses to be transparent about which brand of flour it uses, or lies and says they make their own in-house flour. Otherwise, weak. Cloudron is open about the tech it uses. Me using an open source app is so far off-base as to be useless as a comparison. Even various resellers tend to inform the customer what their tech is composed of. I won't go with any company that isn't transparent (enough). Your point was totally not made, but I understand your attempt.
Whitelabeling solves this by not adding extra terms to user facing interfaces (i.e. log in with Cloudron).
Good luck never uttering the word "Cloudron"! Look, I know there are users out there to whom no amount of explanation will help them understand the underlying tech, but I'm not talking about users, I'm talking about customers trying to decide from who to buy services from. But, I get your point about a benefit of whitelisting in your example. On the other hand, I enjoy telling people I use Cloudron in order that they too might start using it, so why would Cloudron remove that potential from a company using it in-house with 10s, 100s, of employees, some of whom might want to use it themselves on their own time for their own projects?
Anyway, thanks for the rebuttals and points everyone!
Now, let's tackle those apps which also don't allow, or make it possible, to change their own icons for our own use!
A life lived in fear is a life half-lived
-
@scooke I have an idea, that people who will use Cloudron (and god forbid - understand how it works) and people who just need business services - it's a different set of people, buying different things.
It's one of the engineering's curses, I believe: you don't just buy shiny cool smartphone with AI on it, that you hope will make your life better - you buy A20 chip with 32Gb, Llama 3.1 and cool new OS shell with an API that was finally made available.
Cloudron's whitelabeling is for the later (engineers) who sell it to the former (business users).
