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

Who eats who in open source

platformonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Who eats who in open source

#51

Post by Noumenon72 »

sgt101 wrote: post #36
jandrewrogers wrote: post #8

The root of the issue is that licensing costs, the only costs that open source is guaranteed to reduce, can be a small percentage of operational costs in practice. If open source makes little effort to optimize the vast majority of other operational costs at scale, and this is largely the case in my experience, it can literally be economically uncompetitive with a closed source product that does optimize those other…

I disagree about the opex cost, as anyone who has had to pay for oracle consultants to come in and fix a borked dB would.. I think that a more accurate assessment is 2x-10x the claimed sticker opex cost that the vendors talk about. The problem bring that "boss my system has shat its pants and I need half the budget to g fix it" is a story that NO ONE in ANY corporate can tell twice.

How is it a different story if it was Oracle that shat its pants instead of OSS?

Re: Who eats who in open source

#52

Post by type0 »

pjmlp wrote: post #33
syshum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Economics predicts that public goods will be underprovided by a pure market. This is because of the free rider problem. Since I can't be excluded from the good, I can consume it without giving something up for it. Since it's non-rivalrous, there's no meaningful back pressure that eventually raises the cost of consumption to an unacceptable level. >>A strictly rational agent will always free ride on a public good. A…

Being an old dog at tech, given how the community has been anti-GPL licensing, pushing for non-copyleft licenses, I predict that in a couple of years we will be back to the PD, Shareware, Demoware, Beerware, PostcardWare, whatever were all the way to share code during the 80 and 90's on home computers. And it is already too late to change course back to GPL being widespread. Every year there is a new project replacin…

some open core software already functions like demoware

Re: Who eats who in open source

#53

Post by tyingq »

Andrex wrote: post #48

> Pivotal got eaten by “Dockernetes” aka containers (ironically because Google was pissed off about Hadoop, but that is another story) Would anyone care to give a brief summary? It's the first I've heard of this.

I believe it's just saying that Google was disappointed that their MapReduce research didn't give them any market presence or power. Hadoop took the concepts and ran with it, with no direct benefit to Google. Pivotal benefited a lot with their commerical distro of Hadoop.

Google didn't make the same mistake with K8S and it killed Pivotal's PCF.

Re: Who eats who in open source

#54

Post by type0 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #41
rienbdj wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but there's another concern: who maintains the software? The original developers forming a company that supports development is not possible if the company is not protected by the license in some way.

Without the provisions of the AGPL, an Amazon could co-opt some GPL'd (or even more permissively / less copylefted licence: MIT/BSD as examples), make extensive changes, use the code as part of an online service, and have no obligation to provide source to user(s). Under the AGPL, the source-disclosure provision persists. In both cases, Amazon is doing software development, but in the first, they're not contributing…

So whats the lesson here? If you don't want your company to become a gazelle, you would have to become a gnu!

Re: Who eats who in open source

#55

Post by syshum »

pjmlp wrote: post #33
syshum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Economics predicts that public goods will be underprovided by a pure market. This is because of the free rider problem. Since I can't be excluded from the good, I can consume it without giving something up for it. Since it's non-rivalrous, there's no meaningful back pressure that eventually raises the cost of consumption to an unacceptable level. >>A strictly rational agent will always free ride on a public good. A…

Being an old dog at tech, given how the community has been anti-GPL licensing, pushing for non-copyleft licenses, I predict that in a couple of years we will be back to the PD, Shareware, Demoware, Beerware, PostcardWare, whatever were all the way to share code during the 80 and 90's on home computers. And it is already too late to change course back to GPL being widespread. Every year there is a new project replacin…

Dont worry Microsoft Loves Linux and Microsoft Loves Open Source. I am sure they will be the protectors we need

Re: Who eats who in open source

#56

Post by [deleted] »

syshum wrote: post #55
pjmlp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being an old dog at tech, given how the community has been anti-GPL licensing, pushing for non-copyleft licenses, I predict that in a couple of years we will be back to the PD, Shareware, Demoware, Beerware, PostcardWare, whatever were all the way to share code during the 80 and 90's on home computers. And it is already too late to change course back to GPL being widespread. Every year there is a new project replacin…

Dont worry Microsoft Loves Linux and Microsoft Loves Open Source. I am sure they will be the protectors we need

[deleted]

Re: Who eats who in open source

#57

Post by ensignavenger »

dredmorbius wrote: post #41
rienbdj wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but there's another concern: who maintains the software? The original developers forming a company that supports development is not possible if the company is not protected by the license in some way.

Without the provisions of the AGPL, an Amazon could co-opt some GPL'd (or even more permissively / less copylefted licence: MIT/BSD as examples), make extensive changes, use the code as part of an online service, and have no obligation to provide source to user(s). Under the AGPL, the source-disclosure provision persists. In both cases, Amazon is doing software development, but in the first, they're not contributing…

Except that Amazon does contribute to less copylefted open source code, so there must be some motivation beyond licensing forcing them to.

Re: Who eats who in open source

#58

Post by madez »

Noumenon72 wrote: post #51
sgt101 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree about the opex cost, as anyone who has had to pay for oracle consultants to come in and fix a borked dB would.. I think that a more accurate assessment is 2x-10x the claimed sticker opex cost that the vendors talk about. The problem bring that "boss my system has shat its pants and I need half the budget to g fix it" is a story that NO ONE in ANY corporate can tell twice.

How is it a different story if it was Oracle that shat its pants instead of OSS?

You are not limited to Oracle engineers and access to proprietary source code and documentation to clean your systems pants. That makes individual fixes cheaper and the fixes can be shared publicly, leading to additional cost savings.

Re: Who eats who in open source

#60

Post by wayneftw »

exceptione wrote: post #42
jandrewrogers wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two major dimensions to the operational cost weaknesses of open source. Neither is guaranteed to be meaningfully exploited by proprietary software in any particular case. Since we are talking about operational costs, this is almost entirely about data infrastructure software, not things like React. First, there is a vast amount of supported operational tooling that is simply missing from open source ecosyst…

> I can guarantee data intensive businesses who make competent use of open source that I can reduce their infrastructure costs by 4x with ease I am interested in your perspective and experiences. > Oracle and SQL Server have architectures that are as obsolete as PostgreSQL, they don't compete on the basis of being modern, efficient designs but on the basis of having dramatically better operational tooling. What drama…

> What dramatically better tooling does SQL Server has?

I don't know about Oracle but SQL Server Data Tools (SSDT) and SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) are vastly better than anything I've seen for open source databases.

SSMS is just a really good visual client with an excellent table/view designer, diagram builder and query builder with GUI management features that let you manage virtually every facet of your server and databases.

SSDT lets you treat your SQL schema, database settings and deployments like code, with versioning. All of your table schemas, views, functions, procedures, settings, seed data, etc. are stored as text in your git repo. When you're creating, it has excellent intellisense/autocomplete. You can use it to diff your schema and data against a given SQL Server database to generate migration scripts. You can also do data comparisons between your seed data and your server and you can diff schemas and data between 2 different servers without even having created an SSDT schema. Another very useful feature is that you can reverse engineer a SQL Server database that was already created in order to start your SSDT project. It also has visual designers for all of the aforementioned things. It used to be a separate tool, but now it's part of the free Visual Studio community edition. Both tools are free, as are various editions of SQL Server.

Also, SQL Server itself has had features for a long time that PG is just starting to get such as real Stored Procedures, ones that can return multiple heterogeneous result-sets, run transactions and do control of flow with SQL-like statements (IF/THEN, DO, WHILE, etc.) It also has table variables, which are like in-memory tables, that you can use as a faster type of temp table for certain sets of data.

Since I moved off of Windows for my workstations, I've been running SQL Server in Docker on Linux for the past few months - it's rock solid.

Post reply on HN