4 ms·
> 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 does
by 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 agoYes, 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.
- BrandoElFollito 9y agoWhat adware? In which packages? What kind of payment are you talking about? Redhat? Have you ever maintained a bunch (100 to a few thousand) machines where everyone builds his stuff from scratch according to their under the shower visions ? I have and now I will hit the ones who step one nanometer outside the only true and god provided package, that is straight from the distribution. And yes - it does cover the case of you NEVER seeing that. Now you have seen.