4 ms·

What I think is interesting, is the licensing model is basically reverse whaling The bigger the company is, the more likely they are to go with just building C

by fooey 9y ago

What I think is interesting, is the licensing model is basically reverse whaling The bigger the company is, the more likely they are to go with just building Caddy themselves instead of paying for it. So, the only people who need to run the commercial binaries are the situations where the licensing costs actually matter. Maybe I'm underestimating the size of the demographic they're targeting, but it seems to me that the only market for Caddy is a fairly small niche of people who are unwilling/unable to run NGINX or set up their own build process.

georgebarnett 9y ago
I disagree. Big companies are where they're going to buy the licenses because in those companies time is often more kmportnant than budget so you just buy stuff. Another reason is that as soon as other teams become involved you get comments like "this bug is yours because you self compiled this thing", or "we have to buy the vendors version", etc etc. It's not logical and is basically arse covering. Buying the vendor version is an easy way to shoot down a whole category of stupid internal politics.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- camus2 9y ago
  > Big companies are where they're going to buy the licenses because in those companies time is often more kmportnant than budget so you just buy stuff. It doesn't work quite like that. Unless you're friend with the guy who decides who the checks are signed to, or you are already an established brand or your product provides a value so big it's a no-brainer, nobody in a big company will invest in your solution. If the company can get your product for free it will. Caddy is trying to cash in on a product that is young, that has everything to prove, while at the same time pissing off the people it relies on to acquire an "audience", the users of the open source version, it never ends well. The right way to do it is, to leave the open source version as it is, without any license change, while creating a new product,closed source, suited for enterprise. > "this bug is yours because you self compiled this thing", never heard anything like that in my life. > Buying the vendor version is an easy way to shoot down a whole category of stupid internal politics. If you have the power to do so at your business by all means. Buying into a commercial product also require a crazy amount of politics as well, especially if it's a recurring payment PER month PER instance at a minimum of $50, so more than the price of a basic VM on Amazon.
  - Denzel 9y ago
    > > > "this bug is yours because you self compiled this thing", > never heard anything like that in my life. Off the top of my head, Google requires you to own any new third-party dependencies you pull into the source tree. Therefore, Google engineers think very carefully about their dependencies. Also, anecdotally, once my team (at a $100M start-up) decided vanilla Rails/ActiveResource didn't fully support our needs and we'd have to fork/extend it, then we needed an owner. That guy was me. Before I took on ownership, we'd simply file issues with the ActiveResource team and offer changesets if we had the free time to debug. When we brought it in internally, I was required to field all support. It definitely cost our company more, obviously, and it would've been much more convenient and possibly much cheaper to rely on a third-party vendor.
    - camus2 9y ago
      > Off the top of my head, Google requires you to own any new third-party dependencies you pull into the source tree. Therefore, Google engineers think very carefully about their dependencies. And I doubt the same Google would just download some random executable on the net and use it in production instead of doing a extensive source code review and building the executable themselves if they can. My point exactly.
  - BrandoElFollito 9y ago
    > never heard anything like that in my life. Just yesterday I was whipping a team because they built their own version of Apache (for dubious reasons) and broke the patch management system. To quote myself "why the fuck didn't you use the distribution packaged version?? Now go and fix that right now, it is your problem" I think it pretty much covers the case.
    - camus2 9y ago
      Yes, and you don't have to pay to use a packaged distribution of Apache free of adware. > I think it pretty much covers the case. I think it pretty much doesnt.
tjholowaychuk 9y ago
The company that goes and builds this themselves instead of paying a small fee for it, would be a pretty stupid company haha...
- camus2 9y ago
  > The company that goes and builds this themselves instead of paying a small fee for it, would be a pretty stupid company haha... There is a fork without the adware now, so the smart company will use the fork to get rid of the stupid ads. https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge
  - tjholowaychuk 9y ago
    Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick.
    - camus2 9y ago
      > Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick. and got granted $50.000 to maintain an open source project. Maybe that person who "worked hard" should give back the money, instead of being a dishonest "prick". And let's be frank, caddy is a fucking mashup. the great majority of its functionalities come from Go std lib or 3rd party libs, maybe caddy should give money back to them and all its contributors as well.
      - tjholowaychuk 9y ago
        Absolutely! I really think that should be payed forward as well, I'd love to do the same with my projects since they lean heavily on other work, but ultimately you have to become sustainable first or there isn't much to give back. The only alternative is to do the typical VC route, have some startup that makes zero revenue and just hacks on OSS, which is a bigger drain on the economy and I don't believe produces better work anyway.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zenlikethat 9y ago
> The bigger the company is, the more likely they are to go with just building Caddy themselves instead of paying for it. That's not true at all. Big companies pay for software, not small shops. If J Developer says to their boss, "Well, I'd really like to use this thing, but it costs $X" and $X is sufficiently small, companies will frequently just go for it. No technical manager worth their salt is going to argue for their engineers who cost $X0,000 per month to be spending time managing a bespoke build pipeline to get out of paying somebody. > Maybe I'm underestimating the size of the demographic they're targeting, but it seems to me that the only market for Caddy is a fairly small niche of people who are unwilling/unable to run NGINX or set up their own build process. The auto-TLS aspect (among many other niceties such as simple configuration) is really quite nice for a large swath of users.
- stephenr 9y ago
  > No technical manager worth their salt is going to argue for their engineers who cost $X0,000 per month to be spending time managing a bespoke build pipeline to get out of paying somebody. Any technical manager worth their salt won't be letting developers make ops decisions. Oh right, it's devops so you don't have ops, you have developers who think this is a good deal

by fooey 9y ago

georgebarnett 9y ago

I disagree. Big companies are where they're going to buy the licenses because in those companies time is often more kmportnant than budget so you just buy stuff. Another reason is that as soon as other teams become involved you get comments like "this bug is yours because you self compiled this thing", or "we have to buy the vendors version", etc etc. It's not logical and is basically arse covering. Buying the vendor version is an easy way to shoot down a whole category of stupid internal politics.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
camus2 9y ago
> Big companies are where they're going to buy the licenses because in those companies time is often more kmportnant than budget so you just buy stuff. It doesn't work quite like that. Unless you're friend with the guy who decides who the checks are signed to, or you are already an established brand or your product provides a value so big it's a no-brainer, nobody in a big company will invest in your solution. If the company can get your product for free it will. Caddy is trying to cash in on a product that is young, that has everything to prove, while at the same time pissing off the people it relies on to acquire an "audience", the users of the open source version, it never ends well. The right way to do it is, to leave the open source version as it is, without any license change, while creating a new product,closed source, suited for enterprise. > "this bug is yours because you self compiled this thing", never heard anything like that in my life. > Buying the vendor version is an easy way to shoot down a whole category of stupid internal politics. If you have the power to do so at your business by all means. Buying into a commercial product also require a crazy amount of politics as well, especially if it's a recurring payment PER month PER instance at a minimum of $50, so more than the price of a basic VM on Amazon.
- Denzel 9y ago
  > > > "this bug is yours because you self compiled this thing", > never heard anything like that in my life. Off the top of my head, Google requires you to own any new third-party dependencies you pull into the source tree. Therefore, Google engineers think very carefully about their dependencies. Also, anecdotally, once my team (at a $100M start-up) decided vanilla Rails/ActiveResource didn't fully support our needs and we'd have to fork/extend it, then we needed an owner. That guy was me. Before I took on ownership, we'd simply file issues with the ActiveResource team and offer changesets if we had the free time to debug. When we brought it in internally, I was required to field all support. It definitely cost our company more, obviously, and it would've been much more convenient and possibly much cheaper to rely on a third-party vendor.
  - camus2 9y ago
    > Off the top of my head, Google requires you to own any new third-party dependencies you pull into the source tree. Therefore, Google engineers think very carefully about their dependencies. And I doubt the same Google would just download some random executable on the net and use it in production instead of doing a extensive source code review and building the executable themselves if they can. My point exactly.
- BrandoElFollito 9y ago
  > never heard anything like that in my life. Just yesterday I was whipping a team because they built their own version of Apache (for dubious reasons) and broke the patch management system. To quote myself "why the fuck didn't you use the distribution packaged version?? Now go and fix that right now, it is your problem" I think it pretty much covers the case.
  - camus2 9y ago
    Yes, and you don't have to pay to use a packaged distribution of Apache free of adware. > I think it pretty much covers the case. I think it pretty much doesnt.

tjholowaychuk 9y ago

The company that goes and builds this themselves instead of paying a small fee for it, would be a pretty stupid company haha...

camus2 9y ago
> The company that goes and builds this themselves instead of paying a small fee for it, would be a pretty stupid company haha... There is a fork without the adware now, so the smart company will use the fork to get rid of the stupid ads. https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge
- tjholowaychuk 9y ago
  Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick.
  - camus2 9y ago
    > Or just pay the person who worked hard on the project and not be a selfish prick. and got granted $50.000 to maintain an open source project. Maybe that person who "worked hard" should give back the money, instead of being a dishonest "prick". And let's be frank, caddy is a fucking mashup. the great majority of its functionalities come from Go std lib or 3rd party libs, maybe caddy should give money back to them and all its contributors as well.
    - tjholowaychuk 9y ago
      Absolutely! I really think that should be payed forward as well, I'd love to do the same with my projects since they lean heavily on other work, but ultimately you have to become sustainable first or there isn't much to give back. The only alternative is to do the typical VC route, have some startup that makes zero revenue and just hacks on OSS, which is a bigger drain on the economy and I don't believe produces better work anyway.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

zenlikethat 9y ago

> The bigger the company is, the more likely they are to go with just building Caddy themselves instead of paying for it. That's not true at all. Big companies pay for software, not small shops. If J Developer says to their boss, "Well, I'd really like to use this thing, but it costs $X" and $X is sufficiently small, companies will frequently just go for it. No technical manager worth their salt is going to argue for their engineers who cost $X0,000 per month to be spending time managing a bespoke build pipeline to get out of paying somebody. > Maybe I'm underestimating the size of the demographic they're targeting, but it seems to me that the only market for Caddy is a fairly small niche of people who are unwilling/unable to run NGINX or set up their own build process. The auto-TLS aspect (among many other niceties such as simple configuration) is really quite nice for a large swath of users.

stephenr 9y ago
> No technical manager worth their salt is going to argue for their engineers who cost $X0,000 per month to be spending time managing a bespoke build pipeline to get out of paying somebody. Any technical manager worth their salt won't be letting developers make ops decisions. Oh right, it's devops so you don't have ops, you have developers who think this is a good deal