3 ms·
'AND THEY WILL ALWAYS DO IT CHEAPER BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE TO FUND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.' Well, they DID actually contribute patches as the whole ES project was
by mvanbaak 6y ago
'AND THEY WILL ALWAYS DO IT CHEAPER BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE TO FUND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.'
Well, they DID actually contribute patches as the whole ES project was 'upstream-first', this is mentioned in the post with proofs.
From what I can find online, it looks like DocumentDB is actually a layer on top of the AWS Aurora PostgreSQL offering. This means they created a MongoDB compatible API, but are not offering a hosted mongodb cluster. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18870397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18870397)
- soenkeliebau 6y agoWithout wanting to come down on either side of the argument I'd like to say that the Pull Requests they reference in the blog post are over a span of roughly two years and touched somewhere in the vicinity of 1k lines of code. One of them changed one line by adding a synchronized modifier to a function.. I'd not consider that actively developing a product and adding new features.
- petejohnson 6y ago> Well, they DID actually contribute patches as the whole ES project was 'upstream-first', this is mentioned in the post with proofs. Elasticsearch has 35000 pull requests merged. Amazon did 9 of those giving them a contributor ratio of 0.026%. Amazon's contributions to Elasticsearch and Kibana are purely symbolic. This makes their claim as new stewards of the projects even more laughable.