21–29 of 29 posts
TL;DR This is a plug for Red panda. If you're going to look at Kafka inside of Kubernetes at all just look at running Apache Pulsar in K8s. One of the main arguments in this article is worry about exposing the broker but in Pulsar there is a proxy for this and the helm chart supports ingress public endpoint by just enabling a flag.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While still meeting most of the OSI criteria for being open source. It basically says "you can use the features covered by this license for most uses, except creating your own SaaS offering of this product", plus some of the typical boilerplate about ensuring the license travels with the code. It's basically a license that was created in response to how Amazon has been operating, co-opting open source technologies (w…
"The BSL is not an Open Source license and we do not claim it to be one." "The BSL does not meet the Open Source Definition (OSD) maintained by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). OSD does not allow limitations on specific kinds of such, such as production use." > Q: Can I use BSL products to develop software that will be licensed under different licenses? > > A: Yes, as long as you don’t include any of the BSL code in…
a. integrations with other systems which do not have very strict latency constraints
b. replication to disaster recovery site
The benefits are listed (between lines) in both article and below.
Price is is usually still treating those pods like pets:
- one pod per k8s node (taints&node selectors) - special sizing & tunings of the targeted nodes (resources, kernel params, etc)
- one LB per Pod. yes, costly and against what you would expect, but that's what is required for a bullet proof deploy. (delay is not always there, especially in clouds, LB have super efficient implementations (especially gcp)
- bullet proof storage, with the required performance computed in your sizing phase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BSL?
Business source license = fakely open source
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Business source license = fakely open source
These type of interpretations were actually one of the concerns within the Free Software movement when the Open Source terminology started to appear: "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Open Source terminology, how it was coined, was exactly to not imply that it was 'Free' in any sense, so things like BSL actually practice Open Source in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These type of interpretations were actually one of the concerns within the Free Software movement when the Open Source terminology started to appear: "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Open Source terminology, how it was coined, was exactly to not imply that it was 'Free' in any sense, so things like BSL actually practice Open Source in…
Burner account created 8 days ago? So I guess you work for redpanda? For real HN users please read other comments below about why BSL is bad
From the article I linked for example, your stance is more akin to the second one:
- A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
- The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.Earlier quoted context omitted.
While still meeting most of the OSI criteria for being open source. It basically says "you can use the features covered by this license for most uses, except creating your own SaaS offering of this product", plus some of the typical boilerplate about ensuring the license travels with the code. It's basically a license that was created in response to how Amazon has been operating, co-opting open source technologies (w…
"The BSL is not an Open Source license and we do not claim it to be one." "The BSL does not meet the Open Source Definition (OSD) maintained by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). OSD does not allow limitations on specific kinds of such, such as production use." > Q: Can I use BSL products to develop software that will be licensed under different licenses? > > A: Yes, as long as you don’t include any of the BSL code in…
Isn't it "please don't create a competing service to us"? Considering how many tech startups struggled with that very same problem, it's a completely understandable concern. Some, like Sentry, have a time limited license - BSL for 2 years and then it switches to Apache/MIT. Sounds like a pretty good compromise.
> Companies should stop instructing Heather to create these licenses IMO, and just split their code into open source and enterprise-only parts. It's easier, more honest, and ends this whole debate. It's the GitLab/Sourcegraph model too.
It's not easier for them, because the codebase is split, they have to consider which features go where, potentially piss off people by moving features to the enterprise only parts (e.g. InfluxData). And that doesn't stop an Amazon selling your open core version with some custom additions.
Doesn't Strimzi make this completely painless?