4 ms·
It didn't achieve what Elastic wanted. It didn't lead to more people paying for Elastic licenses, it lead to users switching from Elasticsearch to a fork. And t
by thayne 1y ago
It didn't achieve what Elastic wanted. It didn't lead to more people paying for Elastic licenses, it lead to users switching from Elasticsearch to a fork. And they eventually backpedaled and relicensed again under the AGPL.
Now, it might be better for the Open/elasticsearch ecosystem, because AWS is contributing more, and possibly the competition drives both Opensearch and Elasticsearch to be better. But on the other hand, there is now a split between two incompatible products, and Elastic has certainly lost some trust.
- dwood_dev 1y agoElastic might be fine in the long run. But everyone I know(sample size <20 orgs) migrated to OpenSearch and never looked back. They were never interested in running Elastic in a separate cloud or running it themselves, and that's what a lot of these DbaaS providers have to overcome. It's already annoying to create your first terraform module for a new AWS managed service, but they then want the users to have the extra complexity of VPC peering/privatelink/vpn and then manage that lifecycle as well.
- mskkm 1y agotrue