4 ms·

Looked into that in the past, but that's a commercial project, right? While the setting I'm looking at is commercial as well (a corporate product), the idea is

Looked into that in the past, but that's a commercial project, right? While the setting I'm looking at is commercial as well (a corporate product), the idea is a rogue "let's see if I can port that in my free time, because why not" project. No budget. No corporate interest. And frankly, porting WCF services to SS would be a tough sell, if the former work fine and are 'free'/included, so I guess there's zero chance to upstream this, unfortunately.

ghuntley 12y ago
ServiceStack v4 is commerical and really, really cheap. ServiceStack v3 is licensed under MIT (or BSD) and extremely mature, the community has taken over support and it has allowed Dennis to focus implementing features that $enterprise really care/need that the usual developer does not.
- tiedmann 12y ago
  FYI v4 source is AGPL. They're not very good at mentioning it on the main site though. (https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack)
  - darklajid 12y ago
    Thanks, I didn't even see that. The site lists 'free' only for a limited featureset (like 10 requests it seems?). That'll let me check it out at least.
    - ghuntley 12y ago
      V3 may also be suitable for you as well and is completely free BSD/MIT licensed and is supported by a active community on GitHub. V4 is essentially V3 w/about a years extra work on top. Dennis is the creator of ServiceStack and it is now his full-time job, income supports him in implementing features that corporations - like yours - need. ps. condolences about the "if it's not from microsoft it doesn't exist", there exists many companies with better cultures. Outliers like you are worth their weight in gold.
- darklajid 12y ago
  It might be an awesome project. I've no idea who Dennis is, but may he earn a decent living. That said: Cheap? I know that attitude comes up a lot. It seems a business license (required, because > 10 people) is a thousand dollar. In what world is that 'cheap', if you compare it to WCF aka free? Yes, $999 (per developer!) might be reasonable, but read the idea up this thread. I'd love, as in wishful-thinking?, to port our software, in my own time, without any support or budget, to platforms I care about. Let's say SS allows me to replace the WCF parts: How would I sell that to my boss? "Look, you know those weird platforms you have no love for? Pay $999 per developer and our software is now able to run on those." It's not going to happen. The commercial license of SS makes it immediately useless for my pet project. It doesn't matter how amazing it is, unfortunately. We're a very MS heavy team. I'm the outlier. Anything that doesn't come from MS (and sometimes even those suspect 'open-source' projects - how do they make money??) basically doesn't exist. Porting WCF stuff to SS would introduce a new framework, replacing well-known technology with something else. Ignoring the price this would be tough and anything but cheap: Training has a cost as well.
  - eropple 12y ago
    IMO, from my experience with cross-platform .NET stuff, ServiceStack probably is your best choice. And yeah, it costs money. But seriously, a grand is nothing compared to, like, your salaries, if it will improve your development and workflow. If it won't, and you're making arguments to that end, then don't do it - and that's valid too, your boss would be right to disagree with you. Sometimes open source is the wrong answer for an organization. You may not like that, but that's when you quit (which is not a big deal).
    - darklajid 12y ago
      ServiceStack might be the best thing mankind built. I cannot use it. 1) I'm talking about a pet project. Not 20% as in one day a week. I'm working normally, would love to see a way to make this (a port) happen in the evenings. $50 would be more than I would like to spend here, because it's my own money and the end result - even if successful - is probably a 'Huh? Interesting..' and that's that. It would be for my own amusement. 2) To see if it will improve my workflow I'd need to invest (time) in it first. Since I don't have a use case for SS (see 1) I see no point doing that in the moment. I learn new stuff every day, the queue is basically endless. SS could've jumped to the top if it would've been a viable option. So I'm not making the case that it won't improve my workflow: I plainly don't know anything about it. 3) Yes, my salary is more than a grand / month. But that's a crappy metric. It certainly feels as if lots of people here make $100+ a year, the SF crowd. Right, if you basically cost that much in 4 days then this might be something to argue. But that scale changes rapidly with smaller salaries. 4) Even if we agree that $ 1000 (per nose) is nothing, who's going to spend that? No clue how this works in other companies, but here you have to make a case, get X people from management to agree. Why would they? "I would be more productive"? Without snark, I'd really like to see a case for a purchase like this that could work in my scenario. Here's the rundown again, that's what you'd face: "Replace a free and well-understood MS technology in a shop run by MS fanboys with an open-source stack that no one knows a thing about for thousands of dollars, so that the one developer with his crazy interest in non-Windows environments can rip WCF out of our stable and mature product to - maybe - port it to Linux, because he'd consider that cool". No offense, not trying to attack you here - I just want to make it blatantly clear that 'random' comments a la 'that money is nothing' are - if not wrong in general - not useful here. 5) Quitting can be a big deal. It would be in my case. Circumstances, details matter.
- bad_user 12y ago
  I don't understand what's up with the .NET community and the perpetuation of proprietary licenses for frameworks. I do not understand how developers can build on top of proprietary platforms.
  - ClashTheBunny 12y ago
    I think you mean restrictive license. There items nothing wrong with corner case proprietary licences. What is every license before it is stamped 'open source' or 'free software' but a proprietary license? Many people consider copy left licenses more restrictive than your average commercial license anyhow.
    - bad_user 12y ago
      No, I really do mean anything that is not open source and I do not agree with you. For software development at least, everything is wrong with proprietary licenses that forbid ANY of these freedoms: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated And any would-be license that isn't already stamped as open-source by OSI or as free software by the FSF is an instant red flag, simply because there are plenty of licenses available to pick from. > Many people consider copy left licenses more restrictive than your average commercial license anyhow. Even though some people might say that, that's only because they don't know what they are talking about. A license for proprietary software does not give you the right to fork. As a recent example for why that is important, ask the people that have invested in FoundationDB how they feel about that, then read the story of MariaDB on Wikipedia to understand the difference.
  - stinos 12y ago
    Honestly I do not understand that you really would not understand. So here is a typical example of why developpers do build on top of proprietary platforms: startup creating hardware which gets interest almost exclusively from the industry where due to all kind of reasons a common proprietary platform, Windows, is used. Hardware came first and then at one point early on they have to decide what toolset/frameworks will be used for lowlevel and toplevel applications. But really there is not a lot of choice at all: either do what the others do and develop for Windows and as such assure customers will come in, interoperability with other hardware is easy and so on. Or do 'the right thing' and go open source which has the benefit of open source but that is about it. Good luck finding customers willing to embrace your product and use it in their production lines if it runs on some, to them, alien platform of which they couldn't care less what license it has and if there is no straightforward way to make it work together with the hardware they currently own. So basically you are choosing between keeping your startup alive and well and making an income, or bakruptcy.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
justabystander 12y ago
V3 has a free license suitable for usage in closed-source projects. It's still quite usable. V4 switched its free license to the AGPL.
tracker1 12y ago
Depending on what parts of WCF you are using in practice, it may just work [1]. [1] http://www.mono-project.com/docs/web/wcf/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/web/wcf/

ghuntley 12y ago

ServiceStack v4 is commerical and really, really cheap. ServiceStack v3 is licensed under MIT (or BSD) and extremely mature, the community has taken over support and it has allowed Dennis to focus implementing features that $enterprise really care/need that the usual developer does not.

tiedmann 12y ago
FYI v4 source is AGPL. They're not very good at mentioning it on the main site though. (https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack)
- darklajid 12y ago
  Thanks, I didn't even see that. The site lists 'free' only for a limited featureset (like 10 requests it seems?). That'll let me check it out at least.
  - ghuntley 12y ago
    V3 may also be suitable for you as well and is completely free BSD/MIT licensed and is supported by a active community on GitHub. V4 is essentially V3 w/about a years extra work on top. Dennis is the creator of ServiceStack and it is now his full-time job, income supports him in implementing features that corporations - like yours - need. ps. condolences about the "if it's not from microsoft it doesn't exist", there exists many companies with better cultures. Outliers like you are worth their weight in gold.
darklajid 12y ago
It might be an awesome project. I've no idea who Dennis is, but may he earn a decent living. That said: Cheap? I know that attitude comes up a lot. It seems a business license (required, because > 10 people) is a thousand dollar. In what world is that 'cheap', if you compare it to WCF aka free? Yes, $999 (per developer!) might be reasonable, but read the idea up this thread. I'd love, as in wishful-thinking?, to port our software, in my own time, without any support or budget, to platforms I care about. Let's say SS allows me to replace the WCF parts: How would I sell that to my boss? "Look, you know those weird platforms you have no love for? Pay $999 per developer and our software is now able to run on those." It's not going to happen. The commercial license of SS makes it immediately useless for my pet project. It doesn't matter how amazing it is, unfortunately. We're a very MS heavy team. I'm the outlier. Anything that doesn't come from MS (and sometimes even those suspect 'open-source' projects - how do they make money??) basically doesn't exist. Porting WCF stuff to SS would introduce a new framework, replacing well-known technology with something else. Ignoring the price this would be tough and anything but cheap: Training has a cost as well.
- eropple 12y ago
  IMO, from my experience with cross-platform .NET stuff, ServiceStack probably is your best choice. And yeah, it costs money. But seriously, a grand is nothing compared to, like, your salaries, if it will improve your development and workflow. If it won't, and you're making arguments to that end, then don't do it - and that's valid too, your boss would be right to disagree with you. Sometimes open source is the wrong answer for an organization. You may not like that, but that's when you quit (which is not a big deal).
  - darklajid 12y ago
    ServiceStack might be the best thing mankind built. I cannot use it. 1) I'm talking about a pet project. Not 20% as in one day a week. I'm working normally, would love to see a way to make this (a port) happen in the evenings. $50 would be more than I would like to spend here, because it's my own money and the end result - even if successful - is probably a 'Huh? Interesting..' and that's that. It would be for my own amusement. 2) To see if it will improve my workflow I'd need to invest (time) in it first. Since I don't have a use case for SS (see 1) I see no point doing that in the moment. I learn new stuff every day, the queue is basically endless. SS could've jumped to the top if it would've been a viable option. So I'm not making the case that it won't improve my workflow: I plainly don't know anything about it. 3) Yes, my salary is more than a grand / month. But that's a crappy metric. It certainly feels as if lots of people here make $100+ a year, the SF crowd. Right, if you basically cost that much in 4 days then this might be something to argue. But that scale changes rapidly with smaller salaries. 4) Even if we agree that $ 1000 (per nose) is nothing, who's going to spend that? No clue how this works in other companies, but here you have to make a case, get X people from management to agree. Why would they? "I would be more productive"? Without snark, I'd really like to see a case for a purchase like this that could work in my scenario. Here's the rundown again, that's what you'd face: "Replace a free and well-understood MS technology in a shop run by MS fanboys with an open-source stack that no one knows a thing about for thousands of dollars, so that the one developer with his crazy interest in non-Windows environments can rip WCF out of our stable and mature product to - maybe - port it to Linux, because he'd consider that cool". No offense, not trying to attack you here - I just want to make it blatantly clear that 'random' comments a la 'that money is nothing' are - if not wrong in general - not useful here. 5) Quitting can be a big deal. It would be in my case. Circumstances, details matter.
bad_user 12y ago
I don't understand what's up with the .NET community and the perpetuation of proprietary licenses for frameworks. I do not understand how developers can build on top of proprietary platforms.
- ClashTheBunny 12y ago
  I think you mean restrictive license. There items nothing wrong with corner case proprietary licences. What is every license before it is stamped 'open source' or 'free software' but a proprietary license? Many people consider copy left licenses more restrictive than your average commercial license anyhow.
  - bad_user 12y ago
    No, I really do mean anything that is not open source and I do not agree with you. For software development at least, everything is wrong with proprietary licenses that forbid ANY of these freedoms: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated And any would-be license that isn't already stamped as open-source by OSI or as free software by the FSF is an instant red flag, simply because there are plenty of licenses available to pick from. > Many people consider copy left licenses more restrictive than your average commercial license anyhow. Even though some people might say that, that's only because they don't know what they are talking about. A license for proprietary software does not give you the right to fork. As a recent example for why that is important, ask the people that have invested in FoundationDB how they feel about that, then read the story of MariaDB on Wikipedia to understand the difference.
- stinos 12y ago
  Honestly I do not understand that you really would not understand. So here is a typical example of why developpers do build on top of proprietary platforms: startup creating hardware which gets interest almost exclusively from the industry where due to all kind of reasons a common proprietary platform, Windows, is used. Hardware came first and then at one point early on they have to decide what toolset/frameworks will be used for lowlevel and toplevel applications. But really there is not a lot of choice at all: either do what the others do and develop for Windows and as such assure customers will come in, interoperability with other hardware is easy and so on. Or do 'the right thing' and go open source which has the benefit of open source but that is about it. Good luck finding customers willing to embrace your product and use it in their production lines if it runs on some, to them, alien platform of which they couldn't care less what license it has and if there is no straightforward way to make it work together with the hardware they currently own. So basically you are choosing between keeping your startup alive and well and making an income, or bakruptcy.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

justabystander 12y ago

V3 has a free license suitable for usage in closed-source projects. It's still quite usable. V4 switched its free license to the AGPL.

tracker1 12y ago

Depending on what parts of WCF you are using in practice, it may just work [1]. [1] http://www.mono-project.com/docs/web/wcf/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/web/wcf/