Update ADR for Sonatype Nexus to clarify feature parity and limitations

Adding sections around Habor's OCI compliance and lack in other artifact types

Author: Sofus Albertsen

docs/software_ready/ADRs/harbor_as_image_registry.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ The question is: **Which container image registry should we use for our on-premi
 
 * **Harbor:** An open-source, cloud-native registry that provides vulnerability scanning, role-based access control (RBAC), and image replication. It integrates well with Kubernetes and supports OCI-compliant images.
 * **JFrog Artifactory:** A universal artifact repository manager that supports container images, binaries, and other artifacts. It offers advanced features like high availability, replication, and enterprise-grade security but comes with licensing costs.
-* **Sonatype Nexus:** A repository manager that supports container images and other artifacts. It provides features like vulnerability scanning and integration with CI/CD pipelines but lacks some Kubernetes-specific optimizations.
+* **Sonatype Nexus:** A repository manager that supports container images and other artifacts. It provides features like vulnerability scanning and integration with CI/CD pipelines. Has almost feature parity with Artifactory, and also comes with licensing costs.
 
 ## Decision Outcome
 
@@ -32,12 +32,12 @@ Chosen option: **Harbor**, because it provides a strong balance of features, ope
   * Harbor supports Helm charts and OCI-compliant libraries, making it versatile for managing not only container images but also other Kubernetes-related artifacts.
 
 * **Bad, because:**
-  * Harbor's user interface and feature set may not be as polished or extensive as JFrog Artifactory.
+  * Harbor's user interface and feature set may not be as polished or extensive as JFrog Artifactory. User/role section is no way as feature rich and extensible as the competitors, only providing a fixed set of roles with limits in how much you can change.
   * It lacks some advanced enterprise features, such as those offered by Artifactory, which might be needed for highly complex environments.
-  * While Harbor supports Helm charts, its feature set for managing non-container artifacts may not be as comprehensive as JFrog Artifactory or Sonatype Nexus.
+  * It only supports OCI and helm repositories as its types of artifacts. If you need more than that, then choose one of JFrog Artifactory or Sonatype Nexus.
 
 ### Recommendations
 
 * For organizations that require a cost-effective, Kubernetes-native solution with strong security features and support for Helm charts and OCI-compliant libraries, Harbor is an excellent choice.
 * For teams with complex artifact management needs and a budget for licensing, JFrog Artifactory may be a better fit due to its advanced features and broader artifact support.
-* For simpler use cases or teams already using Sonatype Nexus for other artifacts, Nexus can be considered, though it may lack Kubernetes-specific optimizations and advanced Helm chart support.
+