4 ms·

This smells a bit like someone is using the brand of a famous open-source tool they built to promote their startup. If so, that's lame; if the new business is u

This smells a bit like someone is using the brand of a famous open-source tool they built to promote their startup. If so, that's lame; if the new business is unrelated to your open source project, branding it as Pydantic Logfire seems a bit disingenuous. I think there's a less-misleading way to use open-source reputation for business credibility, though: "so-and-so business, by the creators of so-and-so project". Knowing that respected and skilled folks are working on a business is great! It's a fine distinction, but I think it matters.

scolvin 3y ago
If anyone is mislead about whether Pydantic is Logfire or visa-versa, I'll eat my hat. Other than that, see my answer to the other comment.
- nsteel 3y ago
  For the record, I don't agree with the grandparent comment at all. None of this is "lame". It's a path to sustainable OSS and it's more obvious than ever that we need these pathways. But to be fair, the branding here is a little weird. If you were living under a rock and hadn't heard of pydantic then the website reads like pydantic is the company and logfire is a product of said company. That's fine. But then you've also got a product called pydantic. Or is it now called pydantic pydantic? I realise it's kind of an extension to pydantic but the AI focus doesn't make it feel that way and so I think that's where the GP is coming from. Sorry to nitpick, I hope it does well.
  - esafak 3y ago
    This is just how you brand when you have one product. If he made up a new brand to subsume both products nobody would recognize it, so he wisely decided to recycle the existing brand; familiar, and liked. Google was originally just the search engine, without any qualifier. Now it's Google Search. In the same way, pydantic can become "Pydantic Validate" or something.
  - scolvin 3y ago
    I think that's fair. It's a hard problem. We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused, or just called us "pydantic". I think Pydantic being the company name, and a standalone entity, and there being other products is fairly common. I think if Logfire is successful, it will end up just being known as "Logfire".
    - JimDabell 3y ago
      > We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused I don’t see how anybody would have been confused in that scenario? People start new companies with new names all the time. What you are actually doing is what is confusing. It’s a really weird branding choice to name an observability platform startup after a validation library.
esafak 3y ago
It is related, though: the creator is the same, so you can expect the same DX.
robrenaud 3y ago
Finding ways to reward people for building great open source software is something that we need more of. It's not lame at all.
barapa 3y ago
From the website: From the team behind Pydantic, Logfire is a new type of observability platform built on the same belief as our open source library — that the most powerful tools can be easy to use.
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
It’s very telling that you didn’t give an actual concrete example of how someone could get confused/misled, what that would look like, and what it’d result in. This is nothing more than a baseless whinge.

scolvin 3y ago

If anyone is mislead about whether Pydantic is Logfire or visa-versa, I'll eat my hat. Other than that, see my answer to the other comment.

nsteel 3y ago
For the record, I don't agree with the grandparent comment at all. None of this is "lame". It's a path to sustainable OSS and it's more obvious than ever that we need these pathways. But to be fair, the branding here is a little weird. If you were living under a rock and hadn't heard of pydantic then the website reads like pydantic is the company and logfire is a product of said company. That's fine. But then you've also got a product called pydantic. Or is it now called pydantic pydantic? I realise it's kind of an extension to pydantic but the AI focus doesn't make it feel that way and so I think that's where the GP is coming from. Sorry to nitpick, I hope it does well.
- esafak 3y ago
  This is just how you brand when you have one product. If he made up a new brand to subsume both products nobody would recognize it, so he wisely decided to recycle the existing brand; familiar, and liked. Google was originally just the search engine, without any qualifier. Now it's Google Search. In the same way, pydantic can become "Pydantic Validate" or something.
- scolvin 3y ago
  I think that's fair. It's a hard problem. We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused, or just called us "pydantic". I think Pydantic being the company name, and a standalone entity, and there being other products is fairly common. I think if Logfire is successful, it will end up just being known as "Logfire".
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    > We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused I don’t see how anybody would have been confused in that scenario? People start new companies with new names all the time. What you are actually doing is what is confusing. It’s a really weird branding choice to name an observability platform startup after a validation library.

esafak 3y ago

It is related, though: the creator is the same, so you can expect the same DX.

robrenaud 3y ago

Finding ways to reward people for building great open source software is something that we need more of. It's not lame at all.

barapa 3y ago

From the website: From the team behind Pydantic, Logfire is a new type of observability platform built on the same belief as our open source library — that the most powerful tools can be easy to use.

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

It’s very telling that you didn’t give an actual concrete example of how someone could get confused/misled, what that would look like, and what it’d result in. This is nothing more than a baseless whinge.