4 ms·

AWS is the actual villain here. They are the one abusing open source work while giving nothing in return. We can all keep blabbering that it's not open source

AWS is the actual villain here. They are the one abusing open source work while giving nothing in return. We can all keep blabbering that it's not open source anymore, and blah blah, but the reality is that development of such systems is incredibly time consuming, and costs real money. Providing hosted solutions and offering some sirt of consultancy are the only 2 realistic income streams for the people who actually have built 99% of that. Companies like Amazon destroy this because of their greed.

pritambaral 3y ago
This is FUD. It was FUD when this argument was introduced by a scummy marketing company with product they call a database, and it remains FUD in this case also. 1. AWS never provided a hosted Mongo instance. You know who did? Small startups that provided better support than MongoDB Inc., without the scummy "just dump money into MongoDB Atlas! It will solve all your problems! I promise!" spiel that the marketing company in disguise shoved down its customers' throats (even paying customers). MongoDB Inc. went around buying out these startups for cents on the dollar right before they publicly announced the license change. 2. AWS did provide a hosted ElasticSearch service. And they did contribute code in return. Amazon's patches to ES included oft-requested security features that ES upstream flat out refused to merge because that'd harm ES corporate's monetization strategy of demanding money for basic security. ES community edition was not a good citizen of the Open Source world. 3. You don't hear this kind of FUD from the PostgreSQL community. Because that is an actually Open Source project with a really good community. Amazon participates in it as a full member of the community: contributing dev time to not just get their features in, but to also review patches that have nothing to do with AWS and of no benefit to them, to even paying for PG evangelism. 4. AWS provides no hosted ArangoDB service.
- redwood 3y ago
  Re (1) that's because they rebuilt one which represents an ongoing cost and tax that makes it harder for them to compete. Your other gross generalizations are massive distortion of history.. one was acquired by IBM and one was acquired by Rackspace and another remains independent. Re (2) I think elastic's failure to shift into a cloud/saas company is something of an own goal/failure to execute probably because of misplaced sales incentives and sales in logging and security giving a distorted lens into the community but Amazon very clearly strip mined their community as well. Re (3) that's completely untrue... there are about 15 companies competing for postgres and postgres-like mindshare right now and you sure as hell better believe most of them believe the hyperscalers' anti-competitive approach to going to market is a major impediment to their own ability to be stay viable and execute. Re (4) that's because it is not yet popular enough to see ROI from strip mining... but presumably the creators want it to become popular

pritambaral 3y ago

This is FUD. It was FUD when this argument was introduced by a scummy marketing company with product they call a database, and it remains FUD in this case also. 1. AWS never provided a hosted Mongo instance. You know who did? Small startups that provided better support than MongoDB Inc., without the scummy "just dump money into MongoDB Atlas! It will solve all your problems! I promise!" spiel that the marketing company in disguise shoved down its customers' throats (even paying customers). MongoDB Inc. went around buying out these startups for cents on the dollar right before they publicly announced the license change. 2. AWS did provide a hosted ElasticSearch service. And they did contribute code in return. Amazon's patches to ES included oft-requested security features that ES upstream flat out refused to merge because that'd harm ES corporate's monetization strategy of demanding money for basic security. ES community edition was not a good citizen of the Open Source world. 3. You don't hear this kind of FUD from the PostgreSQL community. Because that is an actually Open Source project with a really good community. Amazon participates in it as a full member of the community: contributing dev time to not just get their features in, but to also review patches that have nothing to do with AWS and of no benefit to them, to even paying for PG evangelism. 4. AWS provides no hosted ArangoDB service.

redwood 3y ago
Re (1) that's because they rebuilt one which represents an ongoing cost and tax that makes it harder for them to compete. Your other gross generalizations are massive distortion of history.. one was acquired by IBM and one was acquired by Rackspace and another remains independent. Re (2) I think elastic's failure to shift into a cloud/saas company is something of an own goal/failure to execute probably because of misplaced sales incentives and sales in logging and security giving a distorted lens into the community but Amazon very clearly strip mined their community as well. Re (3) that's completely untrue... there are about 15 companies competing for postgres and postgres-like mindshare right now and you sure as hell better believe most of them believe the hyperscalers' anti-competitive approach to going to market is a major impediment to their own ability to be stay viable and execute. Re (4) that's because it is not yet popular enough to see ROI from strip mining... but presumably the creators want it to become popular