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

AWS gives open source the middle finger?

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 297 posts

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#101

Post by erik_seaberg »

threeseed wrote: post #92
pritambaral wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that some are okay with and would use an unreliable tool is not inconsistent with the fact that it is documented that the tool is unreliable. Popularity among users has little to do with the tool being reliable, and this particular one is already popular for being unreliable.

What you are saying doesn't really make any sense. A systemically unreliable database would never be popular as its not a piece of your architecture that you can tolerate having constant outages with. And there is no evidence of MongoDB being systemically unreliable.

A reckless enough design (e.g., returning success when a request is merely buffered at the client) can lose writes without telling you that it lost writes, which won't affect its popularity among users who don't audit for that.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#102

Post by vshan »

int_19h wrote: post #29

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. MongoDB found that objectionable, and changed the license such that Amazon would either have to pay, or stop using it. Amazon stopped using it, and started using its own in-house implementation instead (presumably because it was cheaper to develop it than to pay MongoDB). So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choi…

It's built on top of PostgreSQL.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#103

Post by quantumwannabe »

TheDong wrote: post #68
Bahamut wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, you could potentially encroach on a big company's interests without knowing so, i.e. they're working in [insert space] in secret, or create an ethical issue for the company. Truth is, excepting maybe Netflix, the rest of FAANG requires you to get approvals.

Every company that is based on california, or that employs you in california, is better. No matter what the non-compete says, if you're in CA, you can use your own hardware and non-work time to develop anything that doesn't directly compete with your employer/dayjob and doesn't use trade secrets/IP from the company. Amazon though is mostly based in Washington, where no such law exists, so sweeping non-competes are le…

This is misleading. While non-competes are enforceable in Washington, employers can not force employees to sign away the rights to inventions produced on their own time without employer resources.

Compare https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140 to the equivalent CA law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... . It's essentially the same wording.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#104

Post by Someone »

fogetti wrote: post #56
int_19h wrote: post #29

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. MongoDB found that objectionable, and changed the license such that Amazon would either have to pay, or stop using it. Amazon stopped using it, and started using its own in-house implementation instead (presumably because it was cheaper to develop it than to pay MongoDB). So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choi…

Yeah, I don't understand it either. There is a company which puts 300 M$ effort into developing something and then another company is using the first company's brand recognition to get a competitive edge while offering zero added value (And no, hosting mongodb in AWS not a new thing, only uninformed people would assume so. When I look around I find services like Scalegrid or MDB Atlas itself which is exactly the thin…

”while offering zero added value (And no, hosting mongodb in AWS not a new thing”

That switches the subject from “do they add value?” to ”are they the first?”.

I would think the existence of other companies offering something similar is an indication that it adds value.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#105

Post by saagarjha »

TheDong wrote: post #68
Bahamut wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, you could potentially encroach on a big company's interests without knowing so, i.e. they're working in [insert space] in secret, or create an ethical issue for the company. Truth is, excepting maybe Netflix, the rest of FAANG requires you to get approvals.

Every company that is based on california, or that employs you in california, is better. No matter what the non-compete says, if you're in CA, you can use your own hardware and non-work time to develop anything that doesn't directly compete with your employer/dayjob and doesn't use trade secrets/IP from the company. Amazon though is mostly based in Washington, where no such law exists, so sweeping non-competes are le…

> No matter what the non-compete says, if you're in CA, you can use your own hardware and non-work time to develop anything that doesn't directly compete with your employer/dayjob and doesn't use trade secrets/IP from the company.

What if you work for a company that happens to have a stake in basically every field of technology?

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#106

Post by bonzini »

zodiac wrote: post #65
fogetti wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't understand it either. There is a company which puts 300 M$ effort into developing something and then another company is using the first company's brand recognition to get a competitive edge while offering zero added value (And no, hosting mongodb in AWS not a new thing, only uninformed people would assume so. When I look around I find services like Scalegrid or MDB Atlas itself which is exactly the thin…

Even assuming that AWS adds no value, what exactly is wrong with offering a "no value added" hosting service and charging for it?

In fact hosting is already a value added, or no one would use it.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#107

Post by MRD85 »

spectre256 wrote: post #10
Pfhreak wrote: post #3

I left AWS after six years of working there wholly because of their restrictive policies about developing software in your spare time -- especially if you were thinking about working on a game. I recognize this article is about a product offering of AWS, and not their internal policies towards contributing to open source, but the two are linked in my mind and I'm not all surprised to see a headline like this.

I "accidentally" worked at amazon for a few weeks when a company I had just joined was acquired by them. I knew it was time to start looking when I was informed that I had to get prior permission to do ANY open source contributions even on my own hardware on my own time. That's just not feasible logistically and above and beyond the general "don't write open source that competes with us or on our our time/hardware wi…

Do you have negotiated work contracts in your country? If your old contract didn't limit work then it would mean being acquired wouldn't affect it.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#108

Post by saagarjha »

senderista wrote: post #88
spectre256 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I "accidentally" worked at amazon for a few weeks when a company I had just joined was acquired by them. I knew it was time to start looking when I was informed that I had to get prior permission to do ANY open source contributions even on my own hardware on my own time. That's just not feasible logistically and above and beyond the general "don't write open source that competes with us or on our our time/hardware wi…

Not just that, when I was there (2013-2014), you couldn’t even post a line of code on Stack Overflow or participate in any MOOC with coding assignments without prior approval. (The security folks couldn’t do any CTFs either.) I doubt any of their competitors have such extreme policies (except maybe Apple, who knows).

Apple allows for participating in CTFs, at least under the usual "in your own time, using your own hardware, representing yourself and not the company".

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#109

Post by saagarjha »

int_19h wrote: post #33
Bahamut wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, you could potentially encroach on a big company's interests without knowing so, i.e. they're working in [insert space] in secret, or create an ethical issue for the company. Truth is, excepting maybe Netflix, the rest of FAANG requires you to get approvals.

Microsoft doesn't. You're only required to get pre-approval in case of conflicts of interest.

> You're only required to get pre-approval in case of conflicts of interest.

Given the extremely diverse set of things that Microsoft works on, much of which is likely done without you being disclosed on it, how can you be sure that your project is not a conflict of interest?

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#110

Post by MRD85 »

Galanwe wrote: post #34
Pfhreak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. My research suggested that Amazon's policies about open source and game development were stricter. (For example, I must be willing to disclose any sales data to Amazon. I must use Amazon products when possible. I must make my project available on the Amazon store if possible.) Most companies also have a process to keep copyright if you need/want to. Yes, most companies have approval processes. They might…

>I disagree. My research suggested that Amazon's policies about open source and game development were stricter. Worked at microsoft for 2 years, there are the same policies. It was not contractual though. It's just that there were notes broadcasted saying that whenever you discussed with third parties, you should use microsoft tools if possible. Want to meet someone? Send a Bing Maps link, not Google Maps. Want to sh…

Today I learnt that there is a Bing Maps
Post reply on HN