Worth noting that TrueNAS recently stopped publishing their build scripts, intentionally making it harder to build their open source code.[0]
[0] https://forums.truenas.com/t/clearing-the-air-on-build-scrip...
[0] https://forums.truenas.com/t/clearing-the-air-on-build-scrip...
> The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.
It became TrueNAS Community Edition a few months ago (last year, maybe).
At work the trend is only adopt open source on a paid plan, adopting or relying on open source otherwise is just waiting for the rug to be pulled. Essentially treat open source as closed source.
How did we end up with this state of affairs?
Which path you go down depends on a lot of factors of that particular piece of software.
Can I trust FreeCORE to be a stable, secure project that hangs on to my NAS data if it’s an unfunded fork? Or would it be better to give up some openness for something like TrueNAS SCALE?
When it comes to stuff like Proxmox and TrueNAS I think a lot of what keeps those good products for homelab use is the fact that they have commercial customers paying for the development. I can count on TrueNAS being around and getting updates because they have a proven revenue stream.
That said, it’s a balance, because sometimes that commercialization becomes a rug pull. A lot of the viability of those projects for homelab use revolves around the companies that put those products out recognizing that they have a customer base that will not pay and accepting that fact without deciding to try to squeeze out every last person who just might pay by compromising the free edition.
I like the way Proxmox and OpnSense handle this: you get the community patch channels which are “not for production use” which scares the corporate businesses into paying but has zero negative impact for home users.
To be clear I’m also not saying FreeCORE specifically is a fly-by-night project or unstable or anything. I’m genuinely unfamiliar with it. I’m just saying, sometimes projects like that end up not being the right choice for certain use cases.
One must have principles onesself to see this as imortant though.
A lot of people use words like "practical" or "pragmatic" to avoid inconvenience.
I've already been using zVault for a year which is a fork of the last truenas core, but it never got any further updates and it's about to become impossible to run up to date software in jails on the old host. The pkg repos that support the host version are about to go eol and the binaries will be gone. So I've already gone through the "what if this doesn't go anywhere?"
My point: It's a pain but I won't relieve that pain by running trunas scale.
I'd rather try switching to xigmanas or dump the whole concept of the front end and just run plain freebsd and learn a few commands to manage storage and file services directly and a maybe a seperate dedicated jail manager like bastille. At least that way I can never be stuck in this position again where I can't update my own software because someone else stopped updating their software.
This entire time you’ve been swapping between NAS distros fiddling with your NAS box my TrueNAS SCALE installation has required approximately zero of my time and has never lost the ability to be updated.
To me, the NAS aspect of my homelab is the least interesting and is something I just want to install once and forget about.
Did they violate some principles of the open source ethos? I guess so; they deprecated build scripts, but the source code of the product is still available and GPLv3. The practical impact to the end user is effectively zero. I’m not even sure I would personally need the source code to be available when it comes to a NAS solution — I did consider unraid as a potential alternative before settling on TrueNAS.
Since I am not one of their C suite or majority shareholders, I have no other way to express what I want and what I don't want.
The usual answer if you don't like something is take it or leave it. So I leave it. Talking about it someplace public like here, I am not trying to be demanding or entitled or anything, just documenting why I choose to leave it, or why one might choose to leave it, even if it's inconvenient.
If TrueNAS/iX whatever turns around and sells to Bending Spoons, then I’ll of course owe you a beer. Until then, their leadership is just trying keep the project alive - and funding other open source efforts at the same time.
Maybe AI fucks all of this up, who knows ….
> At work the trend is only adopt open source on a paid plan, adopting or relying on open source otherwise is just waiting for the rug to be pulled.
"Won't do free labour for our commercial enterprise to profit off of forever" is a rug pull now? It's incredible that you can type these words with a straight face.
People act like you're saying Disney should be able to hold a copyright on Mickey Mouse for over 100 years.
Calling it a "rug pull" when the creator of an open source project decides to stop giving away future work for free is a delusional level of self-entitlement.
(1) The previous releases are still open source. If you don't like it, fork the last free release and maintain it yourself.
(2) People deserve whatever the market is willing to pay for their work. See above.
Frankly, if D. Richard Hipp decided to stop giving away future versions of SQLite for free, I would be the first person to congratulate him for finally having the courage to put his foot down and say "my fellow committers and I deserve at least a few million dollars for 20 years of work making something that billions of machines rely upon."
The issue with rug-pulls like this is that they are deceptively masquerading with this philosophy as a calculated business strategy to adopt users. Then in this case they start using deceptive tactics like removing build files so they can continue appearing to be fully open source, even though they are violating the spirit of that term. Finally, they drop the facade when it is deemed valuable enough. Even if you are a strict capitalist, there is nothing virtuous or meritocratic about these kinds of business strategies, they rely on tricky, concealed intentions, and rightfully deserve criticism.
I'll also add that there is nothing "courageous" about deciding to extract more value from your labor at the expense of public accessibility. True courage is found in acts of selfless sacrifice.
No it isn't. Open source isn't inherently political in any way. Maybe that's what it's about to you, but I open source things because I want to give to others out of a general sense of wishing to build up the whole community. I don't have anything against capitalism.
That's what every partisan hack says before they shove their culture war politics down your throat. Some people out in the real world get laid and just can't be bothered to hear your opinion about the race-swapped Snow White remake, regardless of whether you loved it or hated it.
Money's a good thing to have, but having purpose in life is incredibly valuable too.
However, I will not devalue the work of software engineering by giving away solutions to difficult problems for free and fostering a culture of self-entitlement toward software engineers. Treating prosperous and purposeful existences as conflicting aspirations is an unusually pernicious self-deception. Go get yours, I want you to get paid for your work. You deserve to get paid for the value you create.
Besides that, it's naive to think that if you give up the portion of value you can capture, that it will go back to the people you're really trying to help. In reality, when you publish really good open source work that mega-cap tech companies can use at scale, they are the ones who capture the lion's share of the value you created rather than the end users they are data mining.
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." -Deuteronomy 25:4
If even Jews and Christians- for as much as the self-abasing communists on this site resent them- can concede that even a lowly beast of the field is entitled to a portion of the value it creates, then how much more deserving is dignified man of his recompense?
My point is that there's stuff that I have worked on to scratch an itch and don't feel the need for monetary compensation. I believe there's an intrinsic need to be part of something bigger than ones self, and participating by volunteering time to have the satisfaction of knowing that you helped make something you care about better is not a bad thing, if on your own terms.
The way DRH has talked about SQLite is that he is financially secure and by giving it away gets both the reward mentioned above as well as maintaining the value of the free software which he can still make money off of support contracts. He is choosing to do this because for him that effort is the most rewarding.
FOSS has been a foundational facet of the work we get well-paid to participate in. This is a case in which we have the option to have our cake and share it too.
None of this means you have to participate in this way, but I suggest that your viewpoint is yours and may not be shared by everybody else in the community.
I'm not doing it because I'm Bill Maher and I'm offering the solutions to all of society's problems for free. I'm doing it because I want an HTTP server that does just what I need to do and is not a pain in my ass for my small set of use cases. I've use OpenBSD and its httpd for a couple years now, and I want to fix the only real problem I have with it because I know it's not hard to do. If they won't take my change, the worst they can do is say no and leave me to maintain my own fork in perpetuity.
As for group identity, giving altruistically and being part of something bigger than oneself are completely separate if you really dig into it. Those young women who joined Charles Manson's murder cult were certainly part of something bigger than themselves, while self-employed people who donate a portion of their wealth or adopt children out of the infamous foster care system are not.
I'm not saying group identity is necessarily bad, I'm just making my case that it's neither good nor bad. I would make the case for individualism as paradoxically foundational to creating the kind of society that creates people of stronger moral character, but that's just idle and unprofitable philosophizing, and any schmuck can wax philosophical and sound intelligently profound.
"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." -Henry David Thoreau
One small nit: "group identity". I have no tribe, no group (alas). The only tribe I can lay claim to is humanity itself.
I'm at a point in my life where one tends to ponder the value of one's actions in the scant time left to act. I try to acknowledge the nihilism that whatever I do will be forgotten in short order, but while I'm here I may have the opportunity to somehow "make the world a better place". Life's funny that way.
I wish you luck with your project and thank you for engaging in depth with me.
If you want to make the world a better place, just be a friend to people. Just being someone you would consider a good friend adds incalculable value to the world, especially in world now full of people single-mindedly farming for attention on social media. Application protocols become obsolete, but people remember how you treated them, and it influences how they treat people in a never-ending chain... At least that's my $0.02.
It was good talking to you, take care man!
And, in turn, bdb gained prominence on the back of AT&T claiming copyright on ndbm during the Unix Wars.
So there's a long history of this, and plenty of precedents which suggest that such a move would make very little money and would likely result in a better alternative quickly rising to take its place.
I suspect that Hipp understands this, and is unlikely to do anything of the sort.
And with BSD licenced code this is their right.
And it's my and anyone else's right to observe all of this and criticize it.
Fuck that noise. They are the ones breaking the social contract, not the folks criticizing them for it.
Shameful of you.
This is literally why BSD exists in the first place. To allow companies compete freedom with the code, including freedom to not release changes.
I hate to break it to you: basically every commercial storage vendor on the planet bases their appliances on either BSD or Linux and not a single one is sharing their proprietary code with you. There’s nothing shameful about it, they built a company to make money.
I would phrase it slightly differently. BSD licensing exists to allow everyone complete freedom with the code, not just businesses. It is a gift to the commons without restriction on who may use it or for what, which is why I love BSD (and other permissive licenses).
For my part, I'm simply opting for "leave it" out of "take it or leave it". I merely say WHY I'm leaving it, but choosing to use something else rather than reward trunas for doing something I don't like is not whining or demanding or childish.
Here is childish: You can go fuck yourself for attempting to characterize it that way.
Now you have something to criticize dickface.
Wow, that was easy, it's almost like calling people names is effortless and we can all do that, and not a very valid argument.
They're allowed to stop publishing new work whenever they want to. That's part of the free, open-source software game, wherein: We're all free to provide as much as we wish, and also free to consume as much as we want. Nobody necessarily owes anyone else anything and it's really very beautiful in these ways. This is enabled in large part due to the very low cost of distributing copies of intangible software (which can be very close to zero).
But when money gets involved, then things become different. Contracts can be had. Support requirements can be determined. If a contract requires 5 years of support, then it can be reasonably expected for support to continue for at least 5 years.
It's OK to want that, and to never use software that doesn't involve money. It's also OK for an author/company/org to not want that, and to never agree to those terms.
These are different goals, but one party doing it one way doesn't detract from another party doing it some other way. It's all OK.
I explicitly stated in my comment that we pay for open source (via vendor support). That is not the issue.
It is now a common business strategy to commercialise an open source project. FreeNAS was commercialised as TrueNAS, which is now having some of the source pulled.
TrueNAS doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s built on source projects.
Your statements clearly took issue with the fact that your company has to pay open-source devs whose work it uses for reliability. You presented the options as "pay them, or else get rugpulled", and then went on to say "how did we end up in this state of affairs [where we must pay to not get rugpulled]". There is no possible way to interpret your comment other than lamenting the "state of affairs".
> TrueNAS doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s built on source projects.
As long as it isn't violating the license of those projects, they still don't owe anyone anything. If it is violating the license, complain about it on those terms. But your complaint was about open-source in general, not specifically only this project.
But, at this point, AI makes code cheap enough that I would just fork the open source software and maintain it, instead of paying for a third party. Heck, even with saas, I may clone internally.
The entire reason to use it is because it's trained on huge amounts of expertise.
It's like those SOHO router vendors that release incomprehensible tarballs of their GPL components; lotsa luck building it.
If I'm paying for closed-source ZFS, I'll go with the real thing and buy a Solaris license.
I think scale is also BSD licensed (atleast the gui and middleware)