He asked the business for a sales rep through their sales portal a year ago. That is enough. Shouldnt have to complain a year later on a social media platform to get a response that says "hit me up".
Ignoring a sales request for a company that wants to spend ~1M only to say pls reach out to me again after we had our second funding round in 2026? The OP literally could go back to their sales lead db and respond like a real business. So yeah unprofessional and embarrassing.
So while most of the software is open source rather than proprietary, you still have a fair point that customers pay for support (as they do with most enterprise products). One could theoretically use the product without first-party software updates, managing the open source oneself... but that would have practical impediments (and runs counter to the all-in-one simplicity that customers value in the Oxide product).
Two points about your last point. First, software improvements benefit all customers; as the business grows, the effective cost per customer shrinks. Also, most customers grow their Oxide deployment or will replace hardware after a depreciation cycle. The sustainability of investments into the software (and the product generally) is on solid ground.
Back in the 90s and 00s, lots of companies churned out software products that were sold once, supported forever. It was a sort of Ponzi scheme, supporting old customers with money from new customers. Which was okay during a period of high growth. But sooner or later the market matures, growth plateaues, and the cost of ongoing maintenance becomes a much bigger problem.
Right now you're growing fast and swimming in VC money, so this is probably not an issue. At some point, though, you might find that even hardware depreciation cycles don't provide as much of a cushion as you hope they will. In an economic downturn, people might suddenly realize that Oxide hardware actually remains serviceable much longer than they expected. :)
Oxide uses illumos under the covers That's in no small part due to the composition of the early team--but we have benefitted tremendously from features (ZFS, SMF, FMA, Zones, bhyve, etc.) and observability infrastructure (DTrace, mdb, libproc, etc.) folks on the team have worked on for decades.
This implies that the goal of compensation transparency is to satisfy people's curiosity. I don't think that's the case. Regardless of how it's denominated, I think the goal of compensation transparency is ... uh... equity... no pun intended.
