61–70 of 111 posts
Use a copyleft license. If you're not, you are just giving free labor to billion dollar companies.
If they use GPL, it makes no difference as Amazon can still run it but if they use AGPL orgs would blacklist this because they don't want to be forced to open-source the rest of their code for their "elasticsearch integration"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have experienced significant growth, with revenue increasing to $608.5 million in the year ended April 30, 2021 from $427.6 million in the year ended April 30, 2020 and $271.7 million in the year ended April 30, 2019, representing year-over-year growth of 42% for the year ended April 30, 2021 and 57% for the year ended April 30, 2020 https://s2.q4cdn.com/265747582/files/doc_downloads/2021/Elas... Revenue for FY2…
The fact that they grew despite Amazon doesn't mean that AWS Elasticsearch wasn't a viable competitor. It just means that at the moment it was not an existential threat. However, when competing with a literally A in FAANG, one must be very careful about writing them off. To compare, I knew a company that 10 years ago made really great business intelligence integrations into Excel. They'd operated for 15+ years and we…
Use a copyleft license. If you're not, you are just giving free labor to billion dollar companies.
In this case, which copyleft license would help them? If they use GPL, it makes no difference as Amazon can still run it but if they use AGPL orgs would blacklist this because they don't want to be forced to open-source the rest of their code for their "elasticsearch integration"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have experienced significant growth, with revenue increasing to $608.5 million in the year ended April 30, 2021 from $427.6 million in the year ended April 30, 2020 and $271.7 million in the year ended April 30, 2019, representing year-over-year growth of 42% for the year ended April 30, 2021 and 57% for the year ended April 30, 2020 https://s2.q4cdn.com/265747582/files/doc_downloads/2021/Elas... Revenue for FY2…
The fact that they grew despite Amazon doesn't mean that AWS Elasticsearch wasn't a viable competitor. It just means that at the moment it was not an existential threat. However, when competing with a literally A in FAANG, one must be very careful about writing them off. To compare, I knew a company that 10 years ago made really great business intelligence integrations into Excel. They'd operated for 15+ years and we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Tech or on principle? We are using Amazon ES but leaves a lot to be desired. But I don’t know how much of that is just ES and how much is Amazon
We are doing the transition and everything is just so smooth. Adding new nodes is easy and fast. There's an actually good and consistent UI. Last time we tried to upgrade our cluster version on AWS we ended up waiting for weeks until it randomly updated mid day on a busy day and broke everything. It's a ton of small things that really make a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's so much on top of lucene that I'd say both
Especially considering ~11 of the Apache Lucene committers are Elastic employees as well as 10 members of the Apache Lucene Project Management Committee.
I think it is hazardous to count the number of committers and PMC members that are part of a project that is built at the Apache Software Foundation. It is helpful to keep track of these things to make sure that the project keeps its independence, and is not unduly influenced by the interest of any one company or organization. Committers and PMC members earn their position based on their own efforts as individuals. They don't represent their employers.
The current Apache Lucene PMC chair just happens to work for Amazon today. A number of folks that used to work for Elastic now work at Amazon. But over-focusing on that, and keeping careful track of what company contributes how much to ASF projects, is bad for community health in my personal opinion.
See also Doug Cutting at https://twitter.com/cutting/status/1359160158723711002
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Amazon is the good guy This is exactly what Amazon wants you to think. That's why they're calling it "OpenSearch" and not "AmazonSearch".
They're literally keeping the source open. Call Amazon out for other stuff, not this. Enough with this good vs. evil attitude. People and companies are more complex than that and have varied interests. They do not fall neatly into one camp or the other.
People often run this software on their compute, so obviously eliminating proprietary license complications makes that an easier option for their customers to deploy, and redirects some of that licensing money into the customer’s aws spend.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy there is a FOSS fork, but at the same time it feels like Amazon again has eaten another company’s lunch while feigning innocence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, which copyleft license would help them? If they use GPL, it makes no difference as Amazon can still run it but if they use AGPL orgs would blacklist this because they don't want to be forced to open-source the rest of their code for their "elasticsearch integration"
AGPL worked fine for Grafana for this purpose.
Remember that in this story, as strange as this is to say, Amazon is the good guy. Elastic changed their products from a FOSS license to a proprietary one, and Amazon did exactly what you're supposed to do in that case: fork and continue development of the last FOSS version.
They changed the license after Amazon took all their revenue.