What do you mean by "what happened with Gluster"? Every project tends to be better packaged for some OSes/distros than others, based on the developers' own expertise. GlusterFS was a bit more rpm-friendly than deb-friendly since long before the acquisition. That hasn't gotten much better, unfortunately, but neither has it gotten significantly worse. There's enough software in the world that barely even runs on any distro other than Ubuntu. Is it really worth complaining every time that's not the case?
It's a slightly case than what's presented here: different in that my previous company was paying for Gluster support - when RedHat purchased Gluster, they created a "storage product" and refused to support it unless we used "RedHat Storage Server" on Redhat and not Ubuntu. That was inconvenient.
Ah, I see, you were talking about Gluster (the company) rather than GlusterFS (the project). Got it. Yeah, some of the stuff about Red Hat Storage and commercial support and "recommended configurations" is not my cup of tea either, and I'm on the GlusterFS development team at Red Hat. The upstream community project has a lot of potential that can be hard to reconcile with a cautious "what can we support with minimal training" mindset.
