2 ms·
Removing Xen from the name had nothing directly to do with changing the model for Xen Server; all Citrix products were re-branded at the same time. You never k
by gwd 4y ago
Removing Xen from the name had nothing directly to do with changing the model for Xen Server; all Citrix products were re-branded at the same time.
You never know what corporations will do with products they're supporting, whether they're open-source or not. (Ask VMWare customers how they're feeling now, for instance.) But with open-source, if there's a large enough user base, someone can step in and take over the software to fill the gap -- and in fact, that's exactly what's happened with XenServer: the XCP-ng forked the open-source part of XenServer, and now Vates (the company behind XCP-ng) is actively collaborating with Citrix on future development. Removing features from "free XenServer" wouldn't really have that big of an impact on customers, since they'd almost certainly end up in XCP-ng anyway.
- osamagirl69 4y agoYes, I switched to XCP-ng in early 2017 and haven't looked back. While I am not super in love with Vates (and their incessant pushing of their saas products I have 0% chance of using) it is a great example of the GPL at work protecting users freedoms.
- ultra2d 4y agoAt a previous job I also made that switch. We already were running Xen Orchestra, so the offering of XCP-ng was a blessing. Later on we replaced XenApp with a default Microsoft set-up as that worked just as well. Took a trip down to memory lane and found this recent post which is very recognizable: "How Citrix dropped the ball on Xen ... according to Citrix" https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/30/citrix_xen/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/30/citrix_xen/