Is there any good that done by Amazon to support OSS? Like ever. They started with cloning MongoDB and now Elastic with actually zero contribution to the community regardless of their insane profits. This is a clear single. Amazon can always clone and redistribute any open source software then lock it in for AWS. If we've started to witness declining in OSS, well at least we know now who started the wave.
OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
151–160 of 438 posts
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
The time when Apache or MySQL started out was very different. Imagine where the internet would be if cloud computing itself didn't take off. Do you remember a time when there were hundreds of hosting providers? Do you remember WebHostingTalk where admins would go to check hosting offers from suppliers around the world? The monopolies finished that era. So I don't think that software companies trying to adapt now can…
There are more hosting providers today than in the era you are talking about. AWS has a "monopoly" simply because large companies are using it, and back in the day those companies would have run their own datacenters not used a shared PHP host. For a personal site or startup you have a thousand other options.
I wouldn't say AWS has a monopoly. There are tons of providers ranging from Digital Ocean to Google Cloud. AWS is just the largest because they've been around the longest. They're so deeply entrenched in Cloud that most people automatically think of them. I think things such as Netflix talking about their engineering and how they use AWS was a major boost at the start. Now a days people are literally studying to become AWS certified. We even have a AWS specialised working at my company. AWS and other cloud providers are also very smart in locking in start ups by offering them thousands upon thousands of free credit. Build your MVP on there and then end up vendor locked in but think it's a good thing.
I heard a tidbit that I don't know if it's true or not but I would like to think it is. AWS has become so expensive for some companies that they're starting to migrate back to their own datacentres.
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#153I have mixed feelings about this server side license stuff that mongo db started. Imagine where the internet would be today if the creators of apache and mysql had tried to prevent shared hosting providers in the early days of the web from using their software
Imagine where elastic would be, as the whole success of elastic is based on a apache licensed project (lucene).
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#154Is there any good that done by Amazon to support OSS? Like ever. They started with cloning MongoDB and now Elastic with actually zero contribution to the community regardless of their insane profits. This is a clear single. Amazon can always clone and redistribute any open source software then lock it in for AWS. If we've started to witness declining in OSS, well at least we know now who started the wave.
You're asserting that they have forked OSS and then not provided back the source code for their own improvements.
I guess we can check their github repos to see if that's the case.
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#155It's hard for me to know whether to feel bad for ES in this case. Did they bring it on themselves? Is Amazon too big and a bully? From my perspective, Amazon has made most of its profit price gouging consumers on bandwidth after vendor locking them into their ecosystem, where they bootstrap new services by wrapping open source software with some provisioning scripts, management dashboards and cookie-cutter API / cons…
There are also ways out of vendor lock-in. Alternator comes to mind as a way of migrating DynamoDB workloads out to other cloud vendors or your own servers: https://docs.scylladb.com/using-scylla/alternator/
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elastic spends so much time and effort on making sure that their search is performant (and they are not shy about deprecating and removing features that are slow). I think this is where Elastic will continue to shine. It's one thing to add features, it's another to make it so they work well and make sure the integrating product team doesn't shoot themselves in the foot.
What may hurt them though, is the number of customers that currently feel things are currently "good enough". I don't know what their sales engagement looks like, so I'm not sure if this will really hurt them or not.
Perhaps! My money is on Elastic including an approximate nearest neighbor search in 8.0 which uses the new HNSW feature in Lucene 9, which is going to be hard to do in a distributed capacity and will be a significant feature if they can pull it off.
PS - I've never seen gitsense before and it's really cool. I especially like the focus quadrant!
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
This already exists https://aws.amazon.com/documentdb/
Kinda blocked on the compatibility front after the 4.0 API though, eh?
Not if the recent Oracle vs Google supreme court ruling is to be acknowledged.
DocumentDB is to MongoDB 4.0+ as Dalvik runtime was to JVM.
Here is their 4.0 compatibility update: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide...
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#158What about the thing that is already named OpenSearch?
Yeah the original OpenSearch project is a different enough domain that I think confusion will be minimal. We have talked to the maintainer and he is supportive. We have also posted disambiguation in case anyone does get confused. https://opensearch.org/disambiguation.html
In general I'm supportive of an Amazon open source fork here.
But the name re-use is unfortunate.
Amazon's argument seems to be "Don’t worry, we own the trademark for ‘OpenSearch’ cause it came out of Amazon originally, so it’s cool!”
That is really poor stewardship of the Intellectual Property of the trademark of a name that was part of a standard that was meant to be an open multi-vendor standard. Amazon owned the trademark to protect it's use under that standard, not to re-use it for something totally different harming the standard further.
But it's just another indication that the original Opensearch, like the era of believing in open web standards for inter-operability that it was part of, is dead.
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#159Is there any good that done by Amazon to support OSS? Like ever. They started with cloning MongoDB and now Elastic with actually zero contribution to the community regardless of their insane profits. This is a clear single. Amazon can always clone and redistribute any open source software then lock it in for AWS. If we've started to witness declining in OSS, well at least we know now who started the wave.
You're asserting that they have forked OSS and then not provided back the source code for their own improvements. I guess we can check their github repos to see if that's the case.
As far as I know DocumentDB is closed source. Btw: I can name zero OSS projects from Amazon and this is not the same for Microsoft (VScode, TS) and FB (React, Jest).
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really price gouging for bandwidth? Or is bandwidth just really expensive in general? I honestly don't know. I would assume if it was actually much cheaper one of the cloud's would undercut the other to get customers.
IP transit costs something like $350-$700/mo for a Gbit. Amazon are certainly getting better rates, so even with equipment costs I doubt they're spending much more than $0.005/GiB. Their pricing starts at $0.15/GiB. (Not to single out AWS, the other big providers are much the same.)
I'm below $100/1Gbps 95% with more than one provider as a small player