For our product vision, we can make a comparison with laptops. We aim for an Apple-like experience, in contrast to laptop manufacturers like Lenovo or HP. If a company wants to buy a laptop, they usually write down their requirements and then go and search for whatever laptop meets these expectations. Even if some requirements are unnecessary and make the resulting laptop unstable. Lenovo and HP’s business model is to offer a wide range of laptops, ensuring there is always something that comes pretty close to the customer's requirements. The problem with this approach is that these laptops tend not to be well tested before they are sent out, resulting in a lot of weird behavior (bad drivers, sleep mode not working properly, high energy usage, etc.). In contrast, Apple only has a few products, but they are all very well tested, and they have complete ownership over all the components. Instead of fulfilling every single requirement, they offer an 80/20 package and say, "this is likely enough for you," and their strategy seems to work very well. This is what we want to do at UMH as well. We want to deliver a very good user experience with some personalization options. However, if the user wants to use InfluxDB instead of TimescaleDB, Mosquitto instead of HiveMQ, etc., he would probably need to take the OSS version and modify it himself, which results in forfeiting a lot of the enterprise features that the UMH offers and which we can only provide by having a single user experience (e.g., same stack everywhere, etc.). The user can still do everything that he needs to do (integrate with all of his PLCs, all his enterprise systems, his IT environment, etc.), just the how is where we "lock it down" for our all good. I hope that makes sense as a background for why we chose k3s as Kubernetes 😄