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

Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

elastic.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 188 posts

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#151

Post by ummonk »

WaxProlix wrote: post #2

I was sort of curious, so I went to see what impact this had on the customer experience at AWS. Searching for 'elasticsearch' in the AWS console services dropdown now yields: ''' Amazon OpenSearch Service (successor to Amazon Elasticsearch Service) Run and Scale OpenSearch and Elasticsearch Clusters (successor to Amazon Elasticsea... ''' This seems like a petty, small win from the Elasticsearch people. I understand A…

I don’t think it’s petty as such. Amazon’s naming was likely to cause confusion. This is a good win for Elastic to protect their trademark.

Of course, Amazon has every legal and ethical right to continue providing their fork under a new name as they’re now doing. That’s the whole point of open source.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#153

Post by ramoz »

stevefan1999 wrote: post #148

For anyone who wanted out of this fiasco, checkout MeiliSearch: https://docs.meilisearch.com/ It's written in asynchronous Rust with native application speed albeit using much lower memory usage than ElasticSearch, and comes with even more features than ES, so it's feature-rich, blazing fast and can still benefit on multithreaded CPUs. Downside is that it does not have distributed indexing mode yet, but it is schedul…

Milisearch is cool, but not a solution for “anyone” working on complex & large scale search.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#154

Post by joking »

theamk wrote: post #125
Dylan16807 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s “detrimental” to companies who perhaps shouldn’t have chosen a license that allows AWS to do exactly what they did. Yes, it is. Why the scare quotes? Lots of things are legally allowed that would be very detrimental to me. Or you. > Those companies can’t simultaneously claim to be competent and to have made that choice without knowing what they were doing. I'm glad you can tell the future. > IMO, they chased t…

You say "system has big problems"... so if you had magic power to pass any law and have everyone follow it, what would that law be? I am guessing you didn't like how Amazon was profiting from ElasticSearch's work.. so would you retrospectively change ElasticSearch's license to SSPL? Or maybe help all companies: prohibit all permissive licenses (Apache, MIT, BSD etc..) entirely and force people to either AGPL, SSPL or…

Don’t forget that the core of elastic is lucene, the full text library that is also the core of solr and that has an Apache license, without lucene elastic wouldn’t exist.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#155

Post by antonhag »

arecurrence wrote: post #98
rmccue wrote: post #75

Hopefully this will let each of them compete on their own merits. I’ve been tossing up moving our workloads to Elastic Cloud anyway, because AWS ES Service is a source of constant headaches for us. Feels like at least once a week a server ends up in a state where we can’t fix it, and AWS engineers have to manually fix their internal state. Their standard response is “add more nodes”; well, we did that, and it is cost…

I also had a serious problem with AWS Managed ES. In my case, some of the heap didn't free on every garbage collect which would eventually result in cluster failure. This was likely a JVM misconfiguration and was most easily observed by viewing a shrinking sawtooth pattern on the memory graphs. This resulted in a multi day marathon of sleeplessness keeping the cluster alive by continually rolling it every few hours (…

For what it's worth, this is most likely not a JVM configuration issue and more likely an ES/OpenSearch issue.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#156

Post by josephcsible »

Reminder that Amazon is the good guy and Elastic is the bad guy here. Elastic changed their license from a FOSS one to a proprietary one, and Amazon's fork is a FOSS continuation of the last version before the change. Yes, Amazon is evil in a lot of ways, but there's nothing even remotely evil about what they did here. And yes, Elastic had a legitimate problem that their old license was open to abuse, but the right way to fix that is the AGPL, not going full proprietary.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#157

Post by richardfey »

rmccue wrote: post #75

Hopefully this will let each of them compete on their own merits. I’ve been tossing up moving our workloads to Elastic Cloud anyway, because AWS ES Service is a source of constant headaches for us. Feels like at least once a week a server ends up in a state where we can’t fix it, and AWS engineers have to manually fix their internal state. Their standard response is “add more nodes”; well, we did that, and it is cost…

> Their standard response is “add more nodes”; well, we did that, and it is costing us an arm and a leg, and it didn’t fix the problems. (Plus, now we have new problems where networking blips appear to be causing quorum problems and sending the cluster into a death spiral.)

This. I have had similar experiences and adding more nodes had just amplified the issues; nodes were all also barely loaded.

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#158

Post by dottedmag »

jacquesm wrote: post #88
rubiquity wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: ex-AWS as well, worked very closely with MemoryDB, but not paid to shill! You're entitled to your opinion but your line of reasoning for how MemoryDB for Redis came to exist or the reasoning about why it isn't in upstream Redis is not factual. MemoryDB's architecture uses Amazon's home grown log replication services as pointed out by Werner Vogel in his blog post about MemoryDB[0]. This architecture is fu…

Incompatible or not isn't the point. Not releasing is what it's about. And yes, they can. But that doesn't make it right.

What's the point of releasing a chunk of code that relies on internal AWS infra?

Re: Elastic and Amazon reach agreement on trademark infringement lawsuit

#160

Post by gcbirzan »

clambordan wrote: post #84
rmccue wrote: post #75

Hopefully this will let each of them compete on their own merits. I’ve been tossing up moving our workloads to Elastic Cloud anyway, because AWS ES Service is a source of constant headaches for us. Feels like at least once a week a server ends up in a state where we can’t fix it, and AWS engineers have to manually fix their internal state. Their standard response is “add more nodes”; well, we did that, and it is cost…

We had similarly terrible experiences with AWS ES, so we moved to self-hosted Elastic. It's better but still pricey and requires more manhours dedicated to tuning. Their move away from open-source has been unfortunate. For that and some other reasons we've ended up more impressed with Logz.io and Splunk SaaS.

I mean, logz.io is okay and all, but it's quite expensive, and has a loooot of outages. I don't remember a week where we didn't have issues, the most common being log ingestion lag, which take hours to fix. That, and their API is bad: you can only query over a 2 day period and their API keys allow full control over everything.
Post reply on HN