FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued (freecore.org)

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.

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."

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.

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.