3 ms·

I tend to think that it, more or less, is. Elasticsearch (as an open source product) is not independent. Its reliant on Elastic co, who have a demonstrated hist

by 015a 6y ago

I tend to think that it, more or less, is. Elasticsearch (as an open source product) is not independent. Its reliant on Elastic co, who have a demonstrated history of reducing its FOSS-stance in favor of making more money. Of course, they had to do this; Amazon forced them into a corner, similar to MongoDB. But the fact that there is a critical company behind these two databases, who can be strong-armed, is a threat to the ecosystem these two databases have developed. Compare to Postgres. Postgres will never die. Aurora is gaining serious traction; do you think the Postgres developers are concerned? Why would they be? Their livelihood, and their ability to develop Postgres, does not depend on it being the #1 database in the world. Naturally, ODfES has a tether to Amazon. Amazon could decide to lock more features behind AWS ESS. Its not a perfect situation, but it is better than the one ES has been in for the past few years.

majormajor 6y ago
I think having a company behind it would generally be a positive. People are paying for this product to continue, versus something with just a couple devs doing it as a hobby. Postgres had a huge head start here, and was built in a different world WITHOUT an Amazon equivalent. Are there a lot of major contributions to (not just on top of) ODfES outside of Amazon? If not, I'd be fairly worried about using it in a non-AWS-provided way in the long term, now.
ayewo 6y ago
You say that: "Elasticsearch (as an open source product) is not independent. Its reliant on Elastic co, who have a demonstrated history of reducing its FOSS-stance in favor of making more money. Of course, they had to do this; Amazon forced them into a corner, similar to MongoDB." But there is one more factor you failed to acknowledge that is driving them to make more money: Elastic.co took VC funding. Once you accept VC funding, it narrows the definition of success down to what your investors think success should look, like rather than what the founders desire.

by 015a 6y ago

majormajor 6y ago

I think having a company behind it would generally be a positive. People are paying for this product to continue, versus something with just a couple devs doing it as a hobby. Postgres had a huge head start here, and was built in a different world WITHOUT an Amazon equivalent. Are there a lot of major contributions to (not just on top of) ODfES outside of Amazon? If not, I'd be fairly worried about using it in a non-AWS-provided way in the long term, now.

ayewo 6y ago

You say that: "Elasticsearch (as an open source product) is not independent. Its reliant on Elastic co, who have a demonstrated history of reducing its FOSS-stance in favor of making more money. Of course, they had to do this; Amazon forced them into a corner, similar to MongoDB." But there is one more factor you failed to acknowledge that is driving them to make more money: Elastic.co took VC funding. Once you accept VC funding, it narrows the definition of success down to what your investors think success should look, like rather than what the founders desire.