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

Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#131

Post by tekkk »

theshrike79 wrote: post #130
jamafu wrote: post #115

I never understood why AWS doesn't provide something like LocalStack out of the box. Any team building serious software on AWS needs to mock AWS services in their CI/CD pipelines. What exactly are they expecting developers to do? They would probably argue something like "spin up real infrastructure so you are as close to production as possible" because this way they could make even more money while also avoiding the…

For a subset of people the AWS version of localstack would be enough to run production loads. Which is bad for business =)

That doesn't make sense. You use AWS services because they are in the cloud, not because you want to do self-hosting. Similar to Cloudflare wrangler, localstack should be just a well-built local mocking service.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#132

Post by skeledrew »

sneak wrote: post #106
skeledrew wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> anticapitalist zealots like the FSF

In what way are they?

'The term "free" is used in the sense of "free speech", not "free of charge"'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#133

Post by jayofdoom »

lmz wrote: post #65
jayofdoom wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reason I point out the longevity of OpenStack. As a project, it has significant corporate sponsorship and policies to ensure that one entity can't take over control of it. For instance; the OpenStack Technical Committee is never permitted to have a majority membership made up of a single entity's employees. This means that even though Red Hat, at this stage in it's development, has a majority of contributio…

> This means that even though Red Hat, at this stage in it's development, has a majority of contribution, the project itself can never be taken over by a single entity. If it's one company with the majority of contributions then they can just stop contributing (or put their efforts into a proprietary fork) and all that you're left with is the code and the name. Which is maybe better than "just the code", but not by m…

There are over 600 different people contributing to OpenStack in a given six-month release cycle. Approximately 60% of total code by commit count is from Red Hat employees. I'm one of the 600 that don't work at Red Hat, and there are a lot of us.

You should get a sense of the scale of a project before summarily declaring that it has a single point of failure.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#134

Post by [deleted] »

imiric wrote: post #117
rebolek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. "Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software." Why? Not at all. "Publishing a project as OSS doesn't relinquish you from this responsibility. It doesn't give you the right to be an asshole." You are free to be asshole and it's nobody's business. Actually it's exactly opposite. Such feeling of superiority and privilege, that just because you use some software, you have a…

> "Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software." Why? Not at all. Because that's the core reason why we build software in the first place. We solve problems for people. Software doesn't exist in a void. There's an inherent relationship created between software authors and its users. This exists for any good software, at least. If you think software accomplishes its purpose b…

[deleted]

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#135

Post by tecleandor »

lagartoflojo wrote: post #124
tecleandor wrote: post #11

They 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…

https://opencollective.com/oc-python-fund/contributions/9388...

That's nice, although the rest of the funding felt more like helping them bootstrap their company. At least Python is going to get a bit of that money...

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#136

Post by jrflowers »

imiric wrote: post #117
rebolek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. "Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software." Why? Not at all. "Publishing a project as OSS doesn't relinquish you from this responsibility. It doesn't give you the right to be an asshole." You are free to be asshole and it's nobody's business. Actually it's exactly opposite. Such feeling of superiority and privilege, that just because you use some software, you have a…

> "Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software." Why? Not at all. Because that's the core reason why we build software in the first place. We solve problems for people. Software doesn't exist in a void. There's an inherent relationship created between software authors and its users. This exists for any good software, at least. If you think software accomplishes its purpose b…

If you want software to be free for everyone except for the authors to use, modify, distribute, and sell without restriction I am sure you could work with a lawyer to draft a new “Apache for everybody on earth other than the maintainers, who permanently waive all rights” license.

If that’s what all good maintainers do, and intend to do, there’s really no reason for maintainers to tempt themselves by using awful “open” licenses that allow them the loophole of doing what they want with the software they create. Plus who wouldn’t want to codify that they’re not an asshole?

It shouldn’t be hard to get maintainers that intend for their software to “amount to something” to adopt it, and it would bring a sense of comfort to the people that rely on the software that you write when you announce that it’s the new default license for everything in your repos.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#137

Post by lmz »

jayofdoom wrote: post #133
lmz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This means that even though Red Hat, at this stage in it's development, has a majority of contribution, the project itself can never be taken over by a single entity. If it's one company with the majority of contributions then they can just stop contributing (or put their efforts into a proprietary fork) and all that you're left with is the code and the name. Which is maybe better than "just the code", but not by m…

There are over 600 different people contributing to OpenStack in a given six-month release cycle. Approximately 60% of total code by commit count is from Red Hat employees. I'm one of the 600 that don't work at Red Hat, and there are a lot of us. You should get a sense of the scale of a project before summarily declaring that it has a single point of failure.

You just said majority without any numbers in the original post. I think you'll agree that the calculus would be quite different for 60% vs 85% of effort being from a single company.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#138

Post by imiric »

jrflowers wrote: post #136
imiric wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Software authors should have basic decency and respect for the users of their software." Why? Not at all. Because that's the core reason why we build software in the first place. We solve problems for people. Software doesn't exist in a void. There's an inherent relationship created between software authors and its users. This exists for any good software, at least. If you think software accomplishes its purpose b…

If you want software to be free for everyone except for the authors to use, modify, distribute, and sell without restriction I am sure you could work with a lawyer to draft a new “Apache for everybody on earth other than the maintainers, who permanently waive all rights” license. If that’s what all good maintainers do, and intend to do, there’s really no reason for maintainers to tempt themselves by using awful “open…

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#139

Post by jrflowers »

imiric wrote: post #138
jrflowers wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want software to be free for everyone except for the authors to use, modify, distribute, and sell without restriction I am sure you could work with a lawyer to draft a new “Apache for everybody on earth other than the maintainers, who permanently waive all rights” license. If that’s what all good maintainers do, and intend to do, there’s really no reason for maintainers to tempt themselves by using awful “open…

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Your argument is about some sort of covenant between the developers/maintainers and the users. That’s what a license is. That is the agreement between the parties. In that sense your problem isn’t with individual developers, it’s with permissive licensing.

If you don’t like it when OSS maintainers pivot to proprietary software, why not just create a license that precludes that from happening? The maintainers could waive their rights to pivot or later reuse the code that they wrote in any proprietary software, and that way people could just choose to only create and use NoRugPullForeverEver-licensed software and avoid the headaches altogether.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#140

Post by theshrike79 »

tekkk wrote: post #131
theshrike79 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a subset of people the AWS version of localstack would be enough to run production loads. Which is bad for business =)

That doesn't make sense. You use AWS services because they are in the cloud, not because you want to do self-hosting. Similar to Cloudflare wrangler, localstack should be just a well-built local mocking service.

There's still a cost.

If you're a cost-conscious startup, you could use AWS Local Thingie to run it on a 5€/month VPS while you validate your idea.

Then if you get actual customers you could move it to proper AWS - or you might find out that Fake-AWS is actually enough for you and a 20€ VPS is enough for your uses and pay 0€ to Amazon, while still filing bug tickets to AWS Local Thingie Github for bugs and feature requests =)

Post reply on HN