What feature would you like?
I think the physical server section could use a small adjustment. It would be helpful to support the creation of a hardware device/hardware template that can be linked to multiple systems. For example, I have two identical Dell mini PCs serving completely different roles: One runs my Docker/media stack, and the other is my pfSense firewall. Ideally, I’d like to link the same hardware model to both “systems” (Ubuntu/Docker and BSD/pfSense).
It would also be great to override hardware details on a per-system/hardware basis. In my Docker server, I’ve added more RAM and an extra drive. At my other house, I have a pfSense firewall running on Netgate hardware. With this flexibility, a user could sort by system type—like pfSense—and immediately see that it’s deployed across multiple hardware platforms.
What problem does it solve?
Better reporting and align the wording better. Physical
Where would this apply?
CLI (rpk commands)
Screenshots or mockups (optional)
No response
What feature would you like?
I think the physical server section could use a small adjustment. It would be helpful to support the creation of a hardware device/hardware template that can be linked to multiple systems. For example, I have two identical Dell mini PCs serving completely different roles: One runs my Docker/media stack, and the other is my pfSense firewall. Ideally, I’d like to link the same hardware model to both “systems” (Ubuntu/Docker and BSD/pfSense).
It would also be great to override hardware details on a per-system/hardware basis. In my Docker server, I’ve added more RAM and an extra drive. At my other house, I have a pfSense firewall running on Netgate hardware. With this flexibility, a user could sort by system type—like pfSense—and immediately see that it’s deployed across multiple hardware platforms.
What problem does it solve?
Better reporting and align the wording better. Physical
Where would this apply?
CLI (rpk commands)
Screenshots or mockups (optional)
No response