5 ms·

Death by Cloud - How Amazon is Killing Open Source Software

15 points by Garbage 16y ago

gregjor 16y ago
nonsense
JoachimSchipper 16y ago
The author is essentially arguing that platform-as-a-service companies like Amazon reduce the need for e.g. MySQL support contracts. This is probably true, but "killing open source software" is overblown.
- wladimir 16y ago
  I'd argue it helps open source software: more people are using it. Pretty sure that Amazon EC2 caused a lot of people to try Linux servers. I also don't agree that Amazon support is entirely comparable with a real MySQL support contract. If you need a feature that requires changes to the code, the original developers are a better choice.
  - dangrossman 16y ago
    That situation won't ever occur. Once an individual/organization has chosen Amazon RDS, Amazon support versus MySQL support won't be a discussion. You have no direct access to the servers, so you can't make code changes.
- VBprogrammer 16y ago
  I completely agree, platform as a service is not killing open source. I would add that the exact opposite is a more compelling argument; almost all of the open source heavy companies (Facebook, Google, Amazon etc) are huge contributors back to open source projects. I suppose it might impact the revenue model of the commercial backers of certain open source projects, but I fail to see how this is otherwise detrimental to the users and contributors of open source software.
latch 16y ago
Not sure how this is Amazon, or even cloud specific. Any hosting company, traditional or not, can build enough internal expertise to circumvent support-contracts with the OSS provider.
franze 16y ago
amazon and other cloud services are lowering the access barriere to an advanced server infrastructure significantly. (hey, even i as a private user now have a few instances (i.e.:vpn) in the cloud). the cake gets bigger -> more demand for support services.
bad_user 16y ago
Companies producing open-source need to make money too -- that's not anything new. This is the reason why open-source is a commons resource for software developers, but it cannot overtake commercial software for consumers, and rational people could see this coming. You can also think of it as the commoditization of the software industry, much like Rentacoder. Companies that sell packaged software are against it, companies that don't (i.e. IBM, Oracle, Google) are pro. The open source community has tried to fight back. For example, the new Affero GPL license (AGPL) ... IMHO, AGPL is the product of sower grapes, and the realization that Free Software needs a business model to survive, which isn't easy when your first customer can redistribute your software freely. What AGPL truly allows is for dual-licensing to work for server-side products. But what it also boils down to is that such a company isn't in any danger of having any kind of commercial competition from forks (i.e. the perfect natural monopoly over something that should be public commons), which is something Free Software was supposed to solve in the first place. AGPL is not open anymore and I don't know how it could pass the open-source definition -- because AGPL is an EULA that restrict what users can do with said software, usage rights that don't have anything to do with redistribution by the normal copyright definition. AGPL is only Free depending on which side of the dick you're standing.
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  Certain groups[1] have always tried to eradicate commercial software. AGPL is just the logical adaption to the current environment. Also, given that BSD and GPL advocates can debate about which is "more free" for hours, I don't think "free" is a very useful word in this kind of discussion. [1] "It's called GNU/crazy!"
  - bad_user 16y ago
    Yes, but by going by the definition of both Open Source and Free Software, I don't think AGPL qualifies; that was my point. Going by the Free Software definition, which is a lot more relaxed about terms and simpler: (0) freedom to run the program, for any purpose (1) change it to make it do what you wish How about changing it into something that has an output for which I own copyright / redistribution rights, such that I can sell it? If the output of a program can be considered derived work of that program, than freedom (0) is bitch-slapped. And if redistribution is not involved, then freedoms (2) and (3) don't enter the picture; which is why AGPL is trying to redefine what redistribution means. It's a word-play and I don't know how this was Open Source certified, which makes me think that the process itself is broken (bias towards FSF maybe?).

15 points by Garbage 16y ago

nonsense

The author is essentially arguing that platform-as-a-service companies like Amazon reduce the need for e.g. MySQL support contracts. This is probably true, but "killing open source software" is overblown.

wladimir 16y ago
I'd argue it helps open source software: more people are using it. Pretty sure that Amazon EC2 caused a lot of people to try Linux servers. I also don't agree that Amazon support is entirely comparable with a real MySQL support contract. If you need a feature that requires changes to the code, the original developers are a better choice.
- dangrossman 16y ago
  That situation won't ever occur. Once an individual/organization has chosen Amazon RDS, Amazon support versus MySQL support won't be a discussion. You have no direct access to the servers, so you can't make code changes.
VBprogrammer 16y ago
I completely agree, platform as a service is not killing open source. I would add that the exact opposite is a more compelling argument; almost all of the open source heavy companies (Facebook, Google, Amazon etc) are huge contributors back to open source projects. I suppose it might impact the revenue model of the commercial backers of certain open source projects, but I fail to see how this is otherwise detrimental to the users and contributors of open source software.

latch 16y ago

Not sure how this is Amazon, or even cloud specific. Any hosting company, traditional or not, can build enough internal expertise to circumvent support-contracts with the OSS provider.

franze 16y ago

amazon and other cloud services are lowering the access barriere to an advanced server infrastructure significantly. (hey, even i as a private user now have a few instances (i.e.:vpn) in the cloud). the cake gets bigger -> more demand for support services.

bad_user 16y ago

Companies producing open-source need to make money too -- that's not anything new. This is the reason why open-source is a commons resource for software developers, but it cannot overtake commercial software for consumers, and rational people could see this coming. You can also think of it as the commoditization of the software industry, much like Rentacoder. Companies that sell packaged software are against it, companies that don't (i.e. IBM, Oracle, Google) are pro. The open source community has tried to fight back. For example, the new Affero GPL license (AGPL) ... IMHO, AGPL is the product of sower grapes, and the realization that Free Software needs a business model to survive, which isn't easy when your first customer can redistribute your software freely. What AGPL truly allows is for dual-licensing to work for server-side products. But what it also boils down to is that such a company isn't in any danger of having any kind of commercial competition from forks (i.e. the perfect natural monopoly over something that should be public commons), which is something Free Software was supposed to solve in the first place. AGPL is not open anymore and I don't know how it could pass the open-source definition -- because AGPL is an EULA that restrict what users can do with said software, usage rights that don't have anything to do with redistribution by the normal copyright definition. AGPL is only Free depending on which side of the dick you're standing.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Certain groups[1] have always tried to eradicate commercial software. AGPL is just the logical adaption to the current environment. Also, given that BSD and GPL advocates can debate about which is "more free" for hours, I don't think "free" is a very useful word in this kind of discussion. [1] "It's called GNU/crazy!"
- bad_user 16y ago
  Yes, but by going by the definition of both Open Source and Free Software, I don't think AGPL qualifies; that was my point. Going by the Free Software definition, which is a lot more relaxed about terms and simpler: (0) freedom to run the program, for any purpose (1) change it to make it do what you wish How about changing it into something that has an output for which I own copyright / redistribution rights, such that I can sell it? If the output of a program can be considered derived work of that program, than freedom (0) is bitch-slapped. And if redistribution is not involved, then freedoms (2) and (3) don't enter the picture; which is why AGPL is trying to redefine what redistribution means. It's a word-play and I don't know how this was Open Source certified, which makes me think that the process itself is broken (bias towards FSF maybe?).