Wow, just wow. They think they are the good guys. Incredible.
AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
21–30 of 969 posts
Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#22[deleted]
Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#23And I, for sure, will never use them. The AWS version of ES has been abysmal- it’s only saving grace is that it’s “in the ecosystem”- I was convinced by an AWS zealot on my team. Never again.
I’ll second that. Complete pile of excrement.
Edit: See my comment further down for an extrapolation. This one lacks merit which was a bad call on my part.
Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#24If you are Elastic, how could you compete against AWS even if it is your own software ?
Lower cost. AWS usually has huge premiums over the raw EC2/S3/EFS costs.
Unfortunately lower cost will do nothing to get you in the door at an enterprise that has a committed spend with AWS. I'm sure Elastic has been finding this out the hard way.
Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#25The fact that AWS doesn't link to the Elastic License is hilarious to me. The plain reading of the license is "APLv2 but AWS Can't Sell a Hosted Version" so of course AWS forks the last APL version and plows ahead.
Note, I'm not trying to side with either AWS or Elastic here and I fully recognize that both Elastic re-licensing and AWS forking are within each org's rights. I really just think it is funny how beside the point AWS's press release is here.
EDIT: an apostrophe
Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#26>Stepping up for a truly open source Elasticsearch
Seems like a rather disingenuous way of announcing it given the reason for the license change is (allegedly) a direct response to Amazon.
Not that I'm a fan of Elastic's stance either...
Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#27I do not get why people are coming down on AWS here. Elastic made the software available under the Apache License. That gives AWS the right to offer this service. Maybe they did not have right to trademarks, there are courts to settle that.
AWS contributes improvements to the project. This is just about Elastic and their business model. They could have not made it open source and it probably just would not have been widely used and successful. It is up to Elastic to come up with a business model that works, not blame others if it is not.
Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#28And I, for sure, will never use them. The AWS version of ES has been abysmal- it’s only saving grace is that it’s “in the ecosystem”- I was convinced by an AWS zealot on my team. Never again.
I send about 100GB a day to Amazon ES and it works fine. I used to maintain ES 2.x and 5.x on my own and it was more work for me personally at a slight cost savings.
What has been abysmal for you? Maybe your use case is more advanced than ours, which is mainly absorbing logs from all over the place and doing the typical dashboard and alerts on them (with Grafana).
Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#29Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#30>Instead, new versions of the software will be offered under the Elastic License (which limits how it can be used) or the Server Side Public License (which has requirements that make it unacceptable to many in the open source community). I'm a bit out of the loop here, can someone please tell me why Elastic decided to enact this seemingly Anti-OSS license?
Rightly or wrongly, they are joining a long line of OSS maintainers trying to protect themselves from the clouds profiting from them. It seems reasonable to me at least to say: you can use this software for free, but you can't resell it. If you want professional support, please support someone who is maintaining the software.
It is not OSS if it does that, because you limit what the software can be used for.
It becomes just source-available software.
Being open-source to get a user base and then change the license isn't that great, they should have started as proprietary and that'd have been fine.