That solution can be recreated by a skilled AI boosted senior platform engineer in a few days and parity achieved in a few weeks. Nothing of value was lost.
Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
101–110 of 140 posts
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#102They still have linked their OpenCollective account, where they have raised $10K and still have a balance of $5K. [0] It's not a lot in the great scheme of things, but, have they been using a platform that's seemingly built for communities and open source to bootstrap their business? Because this is not a 'open core' situation. They just closed the repo and ran away. If they had that idea all along, I feel like it ha…
Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!? They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant. Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why…
I can't think of any free or open license that requires you to leave your code available for any specific period of time if you are not simultaneously distributing binaries.
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!? They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant. Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why…
> a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up More like a company took advantage of a community that expected their freely offered labor to not be commercialized at any point in time without making available said works in a fully free vector as well, as that's an implicit expectation behind "open source".
It looks like it's Apache licensed, so this was the expected and intended outcome for contributors. If they wanted their work to remain free and not become proprietary, they should have only contributed under perma-free licenses like GPL.
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#104An emulator for integration testing against the major cloud providers seems like it should: 1. be table-stakes for a SDK from the cloud providers themselves 2. have the obvious home in a foundation like the CNCF; how else could you be "cloud native" afterall?
ha. Cloud Native ≠ Native Cloud Services. I always found it odd that the marketing successfully pivoted the term Cloud Native from meaning 'managed services consumed as APIs over the internet' to a generic umbrella for self-hosted versions of the cloud control planes and container management tooling. That isn't a dig at the particular tools themselves - they just aren't... you know... cloud.
K8s mostly provides that layer. What’s missing is for cloud providers to implement all their services as k8s resources. Many already are, like all the networking stuff, VMs, storage and loadbalancers. I think it’s missing things like an object or kv store, sql databases, etc. won’t be surprised if they eventually make their way there. But like everything complicated, you’ll end up with people taking dependence’s on various vendor specific behaviors or features.
f you were trying to unify cloud providers existing manages services and consume them as APIs over the internet, you would begin by defining what that API is, not adopt an existing vendor API. And that’s what k8s did.
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Failed deployments without rollbacks still leave you in a unusable state and manual rollbacks of a failed service deployment can take as long to cleanup as the failed rollback you just disabled especially when dealing with persistent resources. That linked fargate stack is fairly bare bones in comparison to what we run in ECS and we maintain our own AMIs that are built nightly for security updates and ECR resources f…
Why are you running your own AMIs for ECS instead of just using Fargate? The build pipeline I used in CodeBuild was build the Docker container and a sidecar Nginx container. The parameter you pass in is the new Docker container you just built. But how would LocalStack help? You also don’t have massive CDK apps. The Docker images are going to change much more frequently than your persistent layer. You’re not going to…
Own AMIs? Simply cost. No other reason, although we're evaluating it again, so we'll see.
We actually have several "massive" CDK projects now, depending on what metric you use for determining size. Our largest CDK app has more than 60 stacks, but with a cellular architecture that's artifially inflating the numbers a bit (n unique stacks against k AWS accounts where k > n but for n > 20, 14) with constantly changing external contracts, it probably won't; it hasn't the last 6 years, it only gets faster.
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!? They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant. Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why…
> a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up More like a company took advantage of a community that expected their freely offered labor to not be commercialized at any point in time without making available said works in a fully free vector as well, as that's an implicit expectation behind "open source".
Donating software to the world is not an expectation that nobody uses that software to make money or build proprietary products on top of it.
Not all f/oss contributors are anticapitalist zealots like the FSF, as evidenced by the huge popularity of permissive licenses such as MIT.
There’s nothing implicit about it. The licenses are explicit legal documents.
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#107Probably to do with the emergence of a vibe coded app that probably used their tests and code https://github.com/hectorvent/floci
Seems it's the other way around: the README cites the months older sunset announcement as the motivation.
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#108I worked for a company that also used AWS. It was a cloud-first company so we needed to use AWS stuff even if there was a more portable variant available. We needed to run this Localstack to get stuff done. I really did not like using localstack.
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!? They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant. Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why…
> a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up More like a company took advantage of a community that expected their freely offered labor to not be commercialized at any point in time without making available said works in a fully free vector as well, as that's an implicit expectation behind "open source".
> … took advantage of a community…
It would be helpful for everyone if that community would pause before contributing to code bases with licenses which allow for that. MIT, BSD, Apache, …
It would be helpful for them because they’ll know what they’re getting into. For us because we won’t have to see this tragedy unfold time and time again. And for all open source users because more efforts will be directed towards programs with licenses that protect end users. GPL, AGPL, …
It will be a little worse for companies seeking free labor. A price I’m willing to pay.
Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like you’re trying to build a system of ethics around being annoyed by OSS maintainers not working for free in perpetuity. Having access to Apache licensed code that you can build off of is better than never having access to any code at all. Anything else about values or respect has to be inferred or imagined and has no bearing on the software itself. Edit: Like who cares if they “wanted” to contribute to th…
The ethical problem is the bait-and-switch. A project that begins open and remains open is no problem; a project that begins closed and remains closed is no problem (ethically); a project that begins closed and becomes open is no ethical problem either. But a project that begins open, advertises their openness to the world, uses their openness to attract lots of community interest and then suddenly becomes closed is…
Precisely.
It's remarkable that people think releasing a project as OSS is a license to disrespect users. This isn't even related to OSS. Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software. This relationship starts with that.
Publishing a project as OSS doesn't relinquish you from this responsibility. It doesn't give you the right to be an asshole.
And yet we fall for this trap time and time again, and there are always those who somehow defend this behavior.
I think it's an inherent conflict with the entrepreneurship mindset and those who visit this forum. Their primary goal is to profit from software. OSS is seen as a "gift" and an act of philanthropy, rather than a social movement to collaborate on building public goods. That's silly communism, after all. I'm demanding that people work for free for my benefit! Unbelievable.