4 ms·

> enterprise value-add can be replicated by a two pizza team and that team is cheaper than your licensing fees This is always easier if the starting point of t

> enterprise value-add can be replicated by a two pizza team and that team is cheaper than your licensing fees This is always easier if the starting point of that two-pizza team is fairly close to "clone the version that already works, change the name, and run the deploy script". > We do this all the time on a smaller scale at our company to avoid license fees There is a huge difference between you doing something for your in-house use, and Amazon doing something in order to turn around and re-sell it.

Spivak 6y ago
> This is always easier if the starting point of that two-pizza team is fairly close to "clone the version that already works, change the name, and run the deploy script". This model only works with the OSS/community versions of software. If the the only value of your hosted offering is the hosting I would expect you to get eaten by a company with cheaper hosting costs than you. I'm talking specifically about a clean-room reimplementation of proprietary add-ons that typically make up the "enterprise" version of lots of software.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  > If the the only value of your hosted offering is the hosting I would expect you to get eaten by a company with cheaper hosting costs than you By this logic Google and Amazon should just own-all-the-things because they have the cheapest hosting costs? > I'm talking specifically about a clean-room reimplementation of proprietary add-ons that typically make up the "enterprise" version of lots of software. I don't know what you mean here. As far as I know this is not what is being discussed. Amazon has done no "clean-room reimplementation" here.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if you write a piece of OSS software and your plan to monetize it is just hosting it then you're going to get eaten by companies who are better at hosting than you. Your valuable asset and your core business is your software not your ops. Next, if the way you plan to monetize your OSS software is by selling a proprietary "enterprise" version but the features that version includes are easy to clone and your licensing costs are high then large companies will just hire people to develop their own in-house version and they might kill your business by open sourcing their version because they don't need to sell their in-house version to make it worth the cost.
  - rstupek 6y ago
    Maybe they're referring to DocumentDB versus Mongodb? My understanding was documentdb was wire compatible but a clean room reimplementation of it?
kodah 6y ago
It's always amusing when I see corporate engineers espouse some open source value and then follow it up with, "That's how it's supposed to be!" They totally ignore that if you entirely profit off of grafana and then destroy grafana labs in the process then they will be the maintainers of grafana and since that will go well beyond a "two pizza team" AWS will drop it. tldr: corporate engineers have to be trained to respect and understand open source and it's just weird.
colechristensen 6y ago
I am not wholly convinced. There is a considerable problem in enterprise software where trivial features are enormously expensive. If you hide all of the useful authentication features behind thousands (or tens, or hundreds of thousands) them don’t be surprised when somebody scoops you. Value add needs to be more like added value than ransom.
- OJFord 6y ago
  But that's because the non-trivial stuff, the real meat of the core product, is free right? Almost every dual (or more) priced (core) source available (at least) is enterprises with the money subsidising it for people/companies for whom the alternative is not to use it, not to pay for it. If you have any emotional response like that it's 'ransom', then you're probably not the target audience for the enterprise tier. (And I don't mean that you don't need/can't make use of features hidden in that tier, just that if there are many in the same boat, then the provider misjudged the contents of that tier.)
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  I get the feeling you are talking about Elastic here, and I 100% agree that core authentication and security features (and sane defaults) being "Enterprise" is a bonkers decision.
  - phd514 6y ago
    Core authentication and security features in Elasticsearch have been free and not Enterprise features since last May: https://www.elastic.co/blog/security-for-elasticsearch-is-now-free https://www.elastic.co/blog/security-for-elasticsearch-is-no...
    - nrmitchi 6y ago
      Sweet, I didn't know that had changed. Good decision.
    - _msw_ 6y ago
      Disclosure: I work for AWS Free for some to use under certain restrictions. Therefore not Open Source (which is totally OK, I just want to make sure there's no confusion).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sneak 6y ago
> There is a huge difference between you doing something for your in-house use, and Amazon doing something in order to turn around and re-sell it. Is there? Or is it your bias against commercialization or profit motive of modifications to free software? It seems to me that it's the same changes to the code.
- core-questions 6y ago
  I think they're talking about the scale of the tooling and integrations into existing systems required to roll out Grafana to hundreds of thousands of people.
rualca 6y ago
> There is a huge difference between you doing something for your in-house use, and Amazon doing something in order to turn around and re-sell it. There really isn't. If you make your work available to the world so that everyone has the right to not only use it as they see fit but also extend it to fit their needs then you cannot complain that someone is using said work as they see fit and extending it to fit their needs.

Spivak 6y ago

> This is always easier if the starting point of that two-pizza team is fairly close to "clone the version that already works, change the name, and run the deploy script". This model only works with the OSS/community versions of software. If the the only value of your hosted offering is the hosting I would expect you to get eaten by a company with cheaper hosting costs than you. I'm talking specifically about a clean-room reimplementation of proprietary add-ons that typically make up the "enterprise" version of lots of software.

nrmitchi 6y ago
> If the the only value of your hosted offering is the hosting I would expect you to get eaten by a company with cheaper hosting costs than you By this logic Google and Amazon should just own-all-the-things because they have the cheapest hosting costs? > I'm talking specifically about a clean-room reimplementation of proprietary add-ons that typically make up the "enterprise" version of lots of software. I don't know what you mean here. As far as I know this is not what is being discussed. Amazon has done no "clean-room reimplementation" here.
- Spivak 6y ago
  That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if you write a piece of OSS software and your plan to monetize it is just hosting it then you're going to get eaten by companies who are better at hosting than you. Your valuable asset and your core business is your software not your ops. Next, if the way you plan to monetize your OSS software is by selling a proprietary "enterprise" version but the features that version includes are easy to clone and your licensing costs are high then large companies will just hire people to develop their own in-house version and they might kill your business by open sourcing their version because they don't need to sell their in-house version to make it worth the cost.
- rstupek 6y ago
  Maybe they're referring to DocumentDB versus Mongodb? My understanding was documentdb was wire compatible but a clean room reimplementation of it?

kodah 6y ago

It's always amusing when I see corporate engineers espouse some open source value and then follow it up with, "That's how it's supposed to be!" They totally ignore that if you entirely profit off of grafana and then destroy grafana labs in the process then they will be the maintainers of grafana and since that will go well beyond a "two pizza team" AWS will drop it. tldr: corporate engineers have to be trained to respect and understand open source and it's just weird.

colechristensen 6y ago

I am not wholly convinced. There is a considerable problem in enterprise software where trivial features are enormously expensive. If you hide all of the useful authentication features behind thousands (or tens, or hundreds of thousands) them don’t be surprised when somebody scoops you. Value add needs to be more like added value than ransom.

OJFord 6y ago
But that's because the non-trivial stuff, the real meat of the core product, is free right? Almost every dual (or more) priced (core) source available (at least) is enterprises with the money subsidising it for people/companies for whom the alternative is not to use it, not to pay for it. If you have any emotional response like that it's 'ransom', then you're probably not the target audience for the enterprise tier. (And I don't mean that you don't need/can't make use of features hidden in that tier, just that if there are many in the same boat, then the provider misjudged the contents of that tier.)
nrmitchi 6y ago
I get the feeling you are talking about Elastic here, and I 100% agree that core authentication and security features (and sane defaults) being "Enterprise" is a bonkers decision.
- phd514 6y ago
  Core authentication and security features in Elasticsearch have been free and not Enterprise features since last May: https://www.elastic.co/blog/security-for-elasticsearch-is-now-free https://www.elastic.co/blog/security-for-elasticsearch-is-no...
  - nrmitchi 6y ago
    Sweet, I didn't know that had changed. Good decision.
  - _msw_ 6y ago
    Disclosure: I work for AWS Free for some to use under certain restrictions. Therefore not Open Source (which is totally OK, I just want to make sure there's no confusion).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sneak 6y ago

> There is a huge difference between you doing something for your in-house use, and Amazon doing something in order to turn around and re-sell it. Is there? Or is it your bias against commercialization or profit motive of modifications to free software? It seems to me that it's the same changes to the code.

core-questions 6y ago
I think they're talking about the scale of the tooling and integrations into existing systems required to roll out Grafana to hundreds of thousands of people.

rualca 6y ago

> There is a huge difference between you doing something for your in-house use, and Amazon doing something in order to turn around and re-sell it. There really isn't. If you make your work available to the world so that everyone has the right to not only use it as they see fit but also extend it to fit their needs then you cannot complain that someone is using said work as they see fit and extending it to fit their needs.