3 ms·
It's a problem for people who use Akka already, not those who won't adopt it. The choices are to rewrite the service, pay a massive licensing cost ($2k _per cor
by ramchip 4y ago
It's a problem for people who use Akka already, not those who won't adopt it. The choices are to rewrite the service, pay a massive licensing cost ($2k _per core_!), or live with 3-year old releases with no security updates. It's very disruptive.
- camgunz 4y agoI hear you, but this was always the deal. If anyone ever said, "and we can use this for free forever and it will be updated for us for free forever" they were wrong. Akka devs are 100% within their rights to set the terms of use for their product and thus their work. There was no bait and switch here. This is just how licensing works.
- ramchip 4y agoI agree. It's still a very disruptive change for enterprise Akka users.
- chii 4y agobut is it more than $2k per core disruptive? if so, why not just pay up, and not have the disruption?
- ramchip 4y agoSure? Which option is better totally depends on your use case. If it's a microservice running on 500 cores ($1M/year licensing), and a rewrite would cost 1 person-year (say $300k), then the rewrite is clearly worth it. But if you're running on 10 cores, and a rewrite would take 10 person-years... then it makes more sense to pay.
- braingenious 4y agoThis is where I’m confused. Are the average current users of Akka making more than $25 million in revenue? Or is the average Akka user on track to hit $25 million before they can figure out costs or other options?
- ramchip 4y agoThe users I know personally work on internal services in large companies. They didn't necessarily choose it, some did but some just inherited a codebase and have to deal with it. I work in a large company though, so I have no idea if this is average or just my personal bubble :)