If the customer wants to run old and/or outdated software (or OS) on their server then it's their choice, not ours.
Ofcourse it is their choice, but you're not obligated to provide them then. Hence they should choose Plesk and not DA because Plesk has a different license structure.
So nice if it keeps working with ancient stuff, but DA's license is a 1 time payment for all versions. Plesk lifetime is lifetime for the current version and requires payment for major upgrades. Also costs money.
It's just a different business model. Like you choose either a PC or a MAC.
The point is, DirectAdmin should not be in charge if we can or cannot keep a current (older) server up and running, but we should make that choice.
Then you should choose a panel which provides the kind of license of that choice. You can't force a company to change their policy, just like you can't force Plesk to give you major upgrades for free. Different company's, different models.
Ofcourse I understand that some would like to keep an older server up and running with DA, we don't disagree about that, but it's just not working that way with DA.
Unfortunately maybe for some. On the other hand, from the 3 major panels, only DA is working this way, but for good reason also.
but in the end the customer decides and not the other way around.
That true for the most part, but not for all. Partly we all
let the customer decide for certain things. Which is not always good.
As for being up to date with software on a server, that differs. Due to AVG/GPDR laws here in Europe we are responsible for the security of the server.
If a security issue happens and credentials get stolen, especially if we have out of date servers, then we, the company's are responsible. And due to this risk, we can not only inform the user but also force them at a certain time to make their choice, upgrade their stuff or change hosting service.
Or accept the risk of all the misery and costs which will come over your company on a data breach. And that last one
your choice, not the customers.
Unless you're not in Europe. Which also makes different issues for different company's using DA.
That was just an example. But I will end my part of the discussion, as I didn't want to start up the discussion again anyway, but as stated only explain what already was discussed before. Others also already stated the same arguments you have, so it's a repeating of already known arguments. Which has not lead to changes yet.
Having that said.....
On the other hand, I certainly understand this issue is partly caused by the change of the license check. But abuse was also costing -them- money, so it was not without reason. But before that one could run servers without updates as long als the ip was correct and one did no updates, no matter how the license was ment. So yes it would be nice if some solution would be provided if possible. Ofcourse I don't disagree about something like that.
A simple solution would be to create a simple licensing system along with basic functions, so older systems can be kept online without issues (until hacked, crashed, whatever). But no new updates of any kind, no support, etc.
That would certainly be a good idea for all interested party's. Maybe with a small one time fee, because developping a seperate licensing system might also cost extra work.
But it might be better if they can see how many people would like something like this. DA already said here how their system is and that they won't change it and arguments here are already known.
Maybe if you put in a feature request on the
feedback forum there will be votes, most likely I might even vote for it too as that is not a bad idea, but it gives a better impression as to how many requests there are for it, as not everybody is in the mood for posting on the forums.
I really think that maybe might have a better chance as DA already knows the arguments mentioned and said it wouldn't change. Slight chance, but if the numbers are high enough, one never knows.