Why is Cloud not feature complete compared to Server?

Question

I could see tech difficulties like comparing desktop MS Office apps to the web counterparts. But regardless of whether we're talking Cloud or Server, we're using the same web browser to interact with either. The two applications should be impossible to tell apart.

I just now discovered that Cloud doesn't support single column sections. We use them extensively on Server. This is a basic, simple feature. Atlassian is not going to implement it because non-functional workarounds exist. Why should it have even been dropped in the first place?

Server vs. Cloud, shouldn't it be the same code base? Like the only thing changing is who is hosting it. But it's almost like they lost the source code for Server and are reinventing the wheel and coming up with an octagon. You can stick that on an axle and you can roll but it's just going to remind you you miss a proper wheel.

Nic Brough -Adaptavist- · Answer

The decision to kill Server came later, it was informed by a look at how well Cloud was doing in at displacing small server installs and what the take-up was when it was scaled to accommodate small/medium.   I suspect if up-take had remained flat, Server would have lasted longer!

Gregory Muir · Answer

I wonder how far into that process they decided they were going to kill server. There's a lot of grumblies now with people seeing cloud doesn't do what they're used to.

Gregory Muir · Answer

Sounds like a real pain in the butt. I guess they're doing this because it would be more expensive to have dedicated VM's assigned to each instance and then let the hosting environment figure out that nonsense. Guess there would be a performance hit there.

Still does not explain all the cosmetic changes. Some of those have real impact upon workflow for seemingly no benefit.