Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#71

Post by nzoschke »

We're working on open source cloud infrastructure at Convox (YC S15).

http://convox.com/

https://github.com/convox/rack

The current technology goal is to build a high quality "batteries included" way to setup and operate AWS for engineering teams. We are working for a low complexity, high reliability system:

* 1 command installer to provision a VPC, container cluster, and other important AWS services

* 1 command to deploy apps to the cluster

* Following best practices for cloud architecture (immutable infrastructure, automated updates and rollbacks)

* Leveraging AWS's reliability and scalability (apps are ELB -> instance, nothing experimental)

I'm heavily biased, but it does feel like important work that could have a huge impact.

Companies could save a tremendous amount of time, energy and money if they don't have to re-invent the wheel and build bespoke tools.

Programmers just getting started deserve a way to learn and use AWS without needing to know the intimate details of 20+ services.

Docker is a great example. We really couldn't build our project without Docker. The amount of expertise that's encoded into the Docker API, documentation and growing ecosystem is amazing. When every computer and server talks the Docker API, we all can focus more on our business and less on the systems that run it.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#72

Post by freshhawk »

jldugger wrote: post #70
freshhawk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds right to me, I was talking more about Patreon or bounty type methods of converting money to engineer time. Since you have the experience I am very curious about one aspect of this, does the fact that some fellow contributors are paid have a noticeable effect on volunteer contributors. As in "Why would I do this for free when Alex gets paid?" or "Fuck this, I'll let the paid guys do this annoying part" or even…

> Since you have the experience I am very curious about one aspect of this, does the fact that some fellow contributors are paid have a noticeable effect on volunteer contributors. I realize now that we're talking about different meanings of the term infrastructure. My organization offers co-location and hosting services to a variety of open source projects. You can think of us as sysadmin to the open source communit…

Ah, in retrospect that makes sense and I misunderstood.

> And for all the talk about funding developer time, discussion about the operations side is notoriously quiet. There's a few good actors that help us out, and we're trying to raise awareness of the issue.

> You just don't see a lot of volunteers to get paged in the middle of the night when the website is down.

That's a great point, that's some good work you are doing and I'll admit that I needed my awareness raised on that issue as well. Thanks.

> In a sense, it matters whether your charitable goal is to reward lifetime contributions, or to gift the community better software, and in small ways these can be contradictory. Especially if continued funding relies on demonstrating return on the gifts, merely perpetuating the status quo is a problem.

Well put, I'm a believer in the end goal being better free software and rewarding contributors is a (complex and risky) means to that end.

Good points about the benefits of bringing in juniors and the subtle but important differences between openness at different architectural layers as well.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#73

Post by nayafia »

dang wrote: post #41
dzdt wrote: post #2

Bad headline. Article is about identifying open source infrastructure tools as an overlooked category for venture capital funding.

Ok, let's use yours instead. Thanks! If someone suggests a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.

hi there! I wrote this article. Glad to see it on HN. I didn't see the original headline, but wanted to point out that the current headline is IMO inaccurate. OSS infrastructure isn't an overlooked category for VC funding; it's just not venture backable. My suggestion was not that VC should fix the problem, but that we in tech should recognize the issue and find another way of supporting it.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#74

Post by someguydave »

_iie2 wrote: post #33
scrollaway wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, I don't know who they are - I've seen them linked once before but I have no ties nor love for San Francisco and their work is very localized. So I don't particularly doubt their work but I literally just picked the top post on their front page. If they are doing phenomenal work, I'm not impressed :) And seeing as my previous post is predictably getting instant downvoted, I should also state that I rea…

I work at 18F, here's my hot take: It's been pretty well established that needlessly (male) gendered language makes people feel excluded. Actually, that's too nice. That kind of language excludes people. Period. It communicates that the speaker does not contemplate a non-male audience. I do not know about the communities that you moderate, but constantly assuming a male audience at a place like 18F is wrong factually…

My objection isn't to the cuteness of the bot - it's to the waste of taxpayer's money. Could you really look an elderly taxpayer in the eye and tell them that building slackbots with their bottom dollar is a great idea without feeling a tinge of guilt?

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#75

Post by bobwaycott »

nzoschke wrote: post #71

We're working on open source cloud infrastructure at Convox (YC S15). http://convox.com/ https://github.com/convox/rack The current technology goal is to build a high quality "batteries included" way to setup and operate AWS for engineering teams. We are working for a low complexity, high reliability system: * 1 command installer to provision a VPC, container cluster, and other important AWS services * 1 command to d…

Doesn't running on AWS make this decidedly and automatically not open-source infrastructure?

[edit]—typos

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#76

Post by dang »

nayafia wrote: post #73
dang wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's use yours instead. Thanks! If someone suggests a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.

hi there! I wrote this article. Glad to see it on HN. I didn't see the original headline, but wanted to point out that the current headline is IMO inaccurate. OSS infrastructure isn't an overlooked category for VC funding; it's just not venture backable. My suggestion was not that VC should fix the problem, but that we in tech should recognize the issue and find another way of supporting it.

Well I think we have to go with the author's interpretation. :) Thanks!

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#77

Post by marvy »

shawn-furyan wrote: post #66
amlgsmsn wrote: post #55

Mozilla with it's hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue comes to mind as a steward of such a initiative. But they seem to have been spending the money in pursuing project without a chance to succeed like FirefoxOS and expensive office and perks. E.g. https://ryanseys.com/blog/summer-at-mozilla/ >Interns at Mozilla, myself included, are truly spoiled rotten. Competitive pay, free travel/housing, free snack…

It's not surprising that compensation and perks of non-profits converge with those of for-profits in the same industry. They are hiring from the same talent pool. Also, at the margins, I tend to think that perks allow organizations to hire more cheaply than wage increases.

> perks allow [hiring] more cheaply than wage increases

That sounds like the kind of thing some bored economist must have done some kind study on at some point. I'm too lazy to look for it, so maybe someone else can volunteer. I'll just say that sounds very likely to be true.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#78

Post by hueving »

bobwaycott wrote: post #75
nzoschke wrote: post #71

We're working on open source cloud infrastructure at Convox (YC S15). http://convox.com/ https://github.com/convox/rack The current technology goal is to build a high quality "batteries included" way to setup and operate AWS for engineering teams. We are working for a low complexity, high reliability system: * 1 command installer to provision a VPC, container cluster, and other important AWS services * 1 command to d…

Doesn't running on AWS make this decidedly and automatically not open-source infrastructure? [edit]—typos

I agree, it sounds like an open source tool to help lock you in to closed source infrastructure. Maybe the author meant any open source relevant to infrastructure even if not infrastructure itself?
Post reply on HN