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

AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 969 posts

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#371

Post by halbritt »

geerlingguy wrote: post #299
tinco wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you insinuating that's a small amount of data? You've got to be kidding.

I've seen devs toss crud into infra with debug logs enabled, with millions of lines of deprecated log messages, etc., and the infra budget eats their costs. It's insane. Unless you're literally Facebook, or ingesting data from CERN's LHC... what possible use case requires 100GB of text data ingest per day ? Maybe it's a case of someone throwing a Service Mesh into a Microservices K8s cluster and logging all the thing…

Was at a small startup, SAAS company, handful of large customers. Logs going into ES were north of 1TB/day.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#372

Post by ed25519FUUU »

rdsubhas wrote: post #159
markphip wrote: post #27

I 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…

Popular OSS licenses were designed in an era to allow direct customers (businesses) to directly install and use the software, and redistribution means only distributing the package. Nobody at that time knew or predicted that SaaS (let alone cloud computing) would be a thing, that large, profitable middlemen will directly host the software, pass through just the API, with zero customer exposure to the running instance…

By your reasoning Linus Torvalds should be getting a cut of any money made on a linux host.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#373

Post by basilgohar »

lscotte wrote: post #344
bigiain wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing about the new ES license would've prevented me from using it for free in the previous places I've used it for free, as far as I can tell. Maybe. I can no longer tick the "does it use an approved open source license" compliance checkbox any more. Sadly, for me, there's now a very strong incentive to move forward with an Apache2.0 licensed Amazon fork instead of the Elastic one.

Interesting. ElasticSearch might have OpenOffice'd or Hudson'd themselves.

I would call this MongoDB'd themselves. Except that also would imply that people are still interested in MongoDB. I think their license move probably just accelerated the decline in interest in their product.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#374

Post by dodobirdlord »

markphip wrote: post #121
mminer237 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously Amazon has the legal right to make a fork, but I think it's understandable why people would still prefer that the people who actually did the innovation and the majority of the work get their cut of the insane profits AWS is making.

Elastic forced the fork. AWS was contributing and complying with the license. Why should AWS not be allowed to make insane profits off open source?

AWS was entirely within their rights to do what they did. If Elastic wanted AWS to stop, they just had to re-license their software. Which they have now done. If AWS wants to continue to offer the latest version of ES then they simply have to comply with the new licensing terms. Nobody has done anything wrong or unreasonable, or “forced” anyone to do anything, though it was perhaps not in Elastic’s best interest to have offered ES under the original license.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#375

Post by halbritt »

tinco wrote: post #185
halbritt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I send about 100GB a day to Amazon ES This is why you haven't noticed any issues.

Are you insinuating that's a small amount of data? You've got to be kidding.

Yes, that's a small amount of data. I've worked at small companies with an order of magnitude more data per day and larger companies with three orders of magnitude more data per day flowing into a text indexing service.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#376

Post by dodobirdlord »

javajosh wrote: post #323
mminer237 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously Amazon has the legal right to make a fork, but I think it's understandable why people would still prefer that the people who actually did the innovation and the majority of the work get their cut of the insane profits AWS is making.

I agree. What Amazon is doing is clearly legal , but it also clearly violates cultural norms about fairness. I don't know much about the Elasticsearch team or company, but from a 50k ft view it seems like Amazon could and should throw them a couple mil, at least out of pity.

They probably offered to throw them a couple of million dollars to avoid the hassle and the bad PR, but ElasticSearch is worth a lot more than that.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#377

Post by _msw_ »

brasetvik wrote: post #117

While it's great that AWS has indeed contributed fixes to upstream Elasticsearch, they link to 9 PRs that are generally on the trivial end of the scale. (Though I don't doubt the PR that adds a missing synchronized keyword might have been gnarly and time consuming to debug, and that diff size does not necessarily correlate to importance) For a project AWS was making hundreds of millions in revenue on four years ago (…

Disclosure: I work at Amazon on cloud infrastructure, but not on the codebase in question. I helped with parts of the blog post to try to explain some of the nuance about how things are set up with Elasticsearch as an "upstream".

The 9 PRs were only to demonstrate working in the "upstream first" practice, and aren't exhaustive. It also doesn't cover the additional work in the Apache Lucene project that benefits Elasticsearch as well, which is where larger code investments are being made (since that's the right place for them to live, for much of what's being built).

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#378

Post by vineyardmike »

Pfhreak wrote: post #334
markphip wrote: post #27

I 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…

Is it not consistent with a dislike of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Entinguish approach? While what AWS is doing is (probably, IANAL) within their legal rights, it's arguably immoral because it is basically saying, "We love this project so much we're going to build it into a different direction and charge people to access our version." Which, given AWS's widespread adoption, puts the OS version in peril. Edit: Thanks…

> charge people to access our version

Aren't they sharing the fork? Sounds more like "we like it but its no longer free to use, so we're making it free. btw you can pay us to host it for you"

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#379

Post by anothernewdude »

Pfhreak wrote: post #334
markphip wrote: post #27

I 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…

Is it not consistent with a dislike of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Entinguish approach? While what AWS is doing is (probably, IANAL) within their legal rights, it's arguably immoral because it is basically saying, "We love this project so much we're going to build it into a different direction and charge people to access our version." Which, given AWS's widespread adoption, puts the OS version in peril. Edit: Thanks…

Using any AWS extension or hosted service that isn't immediately replaceable is a really stupid move.
Post reply on HN