5 ms·
As I said a couple weeks ago, they're gonna have to cash out at some point. The move won't be around Uv -- it'll be a protected private PyPi or something. http
by ctoth 1y ago
As I said a couple weeks ago, they're gonna have to cash out at some point. The move won't be around Uv -- it'll be a protected private PyPi or something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44712558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44712558
Now what do we have here?
- kinow 1y agoI haven't adopted uv yet watching to see what will be their move. We recently had to review our use of Anaconda tools due to their changes, then review Qt changes in license. Not looking forward to another license ordeal.
- zanie 1y agoWe're hoping that building a commercial service makes it clear that we have a sustainable business model and that our tools (like uv) will remain free and permissively licensed. (I work at Astral)
- simonw 1y agoI think having a credible, proven business model is a feature of an open source project - without one there are unanswered questions about ongoing maintenance. I'm glad to see Astral taking steps towards that.
- jsmeaton 1y agoI've been wondering where the commercial service would come in and this sounds like just the right product that aligns with what you're already doing and serves a real need. Setting up scalable private registries for python is awful.
- __mharrison__ 1y agoYou know what they say: The best time to adopt uv was last year... I'm all seriousness, I'm all in on uv. Better than any competition by a mile. Also makes my training and clients much happier.
- lenerdenator 1y agoFortunately for a lot of what uv does, one can simply switch to something else like Poetry. Not exactly a zero-code lift but if you use pyproject.toml, there are other tools. Of course if you are on one of the edge cases of something only uv does, well... that's more of an issue.
- int_19h 1y agoGiven how widely popular uv is, I'm pretty sure that in the event of any impactful license change it would immediately get forked.
- snooniverse 1y agoNot sure what you're trying to get at here. Charlie Marsh has literally said this himself; see e.g. this post he made last September: > "An example of what this might look like (we may not do this, but it's helpful to have a concrete example of the strategy) would be something like an enterprise-focused private package registry." https://hachyderm.io/@charliermarsh/113103605702842937 https://hachyderm.io/@charliermarsh/113103605702842937 Astral has been very transparent about their business model.
- MoreQARespect 1y agoAstral doesn't really have a business model yet, it has potential business models. The issue is that there isn't a clean business model that will produce the kind of profits that will satisfy their VCs - not that there isn't any business model that will help support a business like theirs. Private package management would probably work fine if they hadn't taken VC money.
- IshKebab 1y agoI would have agreed with you until I learned that Conda somehow makes $150m in revenue a year. They have fewer users than Astral too (or if not they will do very soon).
- eldenring 1y agoCash out is a bit of a negative word here. They've shown the ability to build categorically better tooling, so I'm sure a lot of companies would be happy to pay them to fix even more of their problems.
- klysm 1y agoIt’s not negative, it’s accurate. The playbook is well known and users should be informed.