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

Samsung Acquires Joyent

joyent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 256 posts

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#161

Post by ethbro »

bogomipz wrote: post #81
benley wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being that Samsung give a shit about contributing to open-source projects at all.

Have you used the browser on a Samsung Smart TV? They didn't give a shit about that.

I think a lot of hardware companies are still in the "smart" transition phase. In the sense that they've only been offering a product line with GUI driven software component for the past ~5 years.

Which means the larger companies* are probably on schedule for development to start slowing because of technical debt. And therefore solving that (modern development practices and open source involvement!) will become a competive advantage.

* Sadly, the smaller companies will probably always be hacked-together-MVP stacks on top of whatever release they started dev on

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#162

Post by miraj »

jeswin wrote: post #67
jsjohnst wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in a Samsung office for enough time to have an informed opinion, I can emphatically say that the "hardware focused history" has nothing to do with their lacking on the software front. They have some amazing engineers (especially at HQ in Korea), but the main obstacles are partly Korean culture in general (especially as it pertains to engineers) and partly the management practices of the company. The bes…

> They have some amazing engineers (especially at HQ in Korea), but the main obstacles are partly Korean culture in general (especially as it pertains to engineers) and partly the management practices of the company. Can you explain the cultural aspects (and management shortcomings) in more detail for those of us who haven't experienced Korea? Thanks.

this article gives a view from the gender aspect of korean workplace culture: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21700461-conservative-wor...

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#163

Post by [deleted] »

moondev wrote: post #159
urza wrote: post #155

Cloud orchestration, Container Orchestration, Kubernetes... I think I am getting old and starting to understand how my parents feel about technology. I am developer, but mostly work on desktop apps, or embedded devices or lataly on some MVC applications. But reading things like "A Container-Native Stack for Modern Applications and Operations Increase development velocity while simplifying operations." I have no idea…

For the most part if your application is developed 12 factor style: http://12factor.net , you shouldn't have to worry about these things as a developer. Stuff like this is more in the ops space. Cloud orchestration: the logic for how your platform provisions and launches instances (think ec2) into your fleet of resources. Container orchestration: the logic for how your applications (containers) are distributed across…

[deleted]

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#164

Post by ctvo »

jen20 wrote: post #119
tracker1 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS already has Azure, with an infrastructure built on their windows core... Not to mention having more services... and while Joyent's Docker story is really nice, MS seems to be heading in a very similar direction with the Windows Subsystem for Linux as Joyent took with SmartOS/Solaris, it's a poor tech fit. I'm not sure where this will take things with Samsung, likely backend services to support their own "store" on…

There is a world of difference between a new, untested implementation of Linux system call translation to a _very_ different type of Kernel on a desktop class operating system than the version on Illumos. The best thing Microsoft could do with their cloud is burn it to the ground and start again with Joyent's tech.

The work on desktop Windows and Linux integration is mainly for developer experience and making Windows attractive for non .net devs. Doubtful that it'll have an impact on Azure unless it becomes extremely mature quickly or if that was MS's intentions at all.

I'm ignorant on why Joyent is so superior to Azure. Can you give some reasons? As an outsider, Joyent looks like a small company with unproven (large, successful customers are the main criteria) products that cost more than the comparable solution from AWS, GC, Azure.

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#165

Post by ethbro »

combatentropy wrote: post #48
bcantrill wrote: post #8

In case anyone's curious, I blogged about the backstory of the acquisition.[1] tl;dr: We at Joyent are elated, and we believe that this will be a huge win for our customers, for our technologies and for the communities that they serve! [1] https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent-a-ctos-p...

Thank you for not burying the lede! It's a lost art.

Never saw it as "lede". Thanks for my new thing of the morning!

Wiki: "In journalism, lede is an alternative spelling for lead paragraph."

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#166

Post by darpa_escapee »

makomk wrote: post #128
vertex-four wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> apparently Linux has a modified version of the GPLv2? I would never notice that, nor would I trust myself to even comprehend it properly. The amendment is actually the first paragraph of the COPYING file. If you modify any of the terms of the license directy, you have to remove the preamble and refer to it as something other than the GPL. The other option for modifying the GPL is to distribute a separate LICENSE fi…

Which in turn means that the only way to check whether code you're using is GPLv2-only and cannot be combined with GPLv3 code is to check the license header in every source file. I guess that's not too hard - I mean, Linux only has 40,000 or so source files?

It's not too hard because it applies to the whole project.

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#167

Post by pwelch »

phaet0n wrote: post #55
bcantrill wrote: post #8

In case anyone's curious, I blogged about the backstory of the acquisition.[1] tl;dr: We at Joyent are elated, and we believe that this will be a huge win for our customers, for our technologies and for the communities that they serve! [1] https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent-a-ctos-p...

Congratulations. I hope Samsung nurtures the technical excellence at Joyent. Please, please continue to develop your public cloud offerings. Having options other that the myopic, me-too, feature-matching, monoculture that is AWS/GCE/Azure is incredibly important. That said, for my use profile, you guys need to work on your price competitiveness. Hopefully Samsung will inject the necessary cash for economies-of-scale.

I second that. I also hope they add necessary resources to grow SmartOS.

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#169

Post by edc117 »

bkanber wrote: post #160
urza wrote: post #155

Cloud orchestration, Container Orchestration, Kubernetes... I think I am getting old and starting to understand how my parents feel about technology. I am developer, but mostly work on desktop apps, or embedded devices or lataly on some MVC applications. But reading things like "A Container-Native Stack for Modern Applications and Operations Increase development velocity while simplifying operations." I have no idea…

So, you build a web app and it gets popular. It needs one load balancer, 5 app servers, at least two database nodes for replication, a redis cluster for caching and queuing, an elasticsearch cluster for full text search, and a cluster of job worker servers to do async stuff like processing images, etc. In the ancient past, like when I'm from, you'd write up a few different bash scripts to help you provision each serv…

As someone more in the development end of things, this was an excellent summary, thank you.

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#170

Post by ivl »

cyphar wrote: post #116
Annatar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there. On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux. I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa), but I'm even more happy tha…

> There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there. Not proprietary software? Not "open source" licenses that don't allow modification (which is also proprietary)? The GPL? The thing that gave us free software in the modern world? Well, that's certainly one opinon. > On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. The CDDL has a provision that if any part i…

>What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original.

This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork. When BSD/MIT/(other permissively licensed code) is used, modified, and re-licensed to GPL, the permissive project can't take those improvements without also re-licensing. The CDDL indeed saved illumos from being cannibalized and disappearing as a community. Had its features been easily ported to Linux without a licencing problem, the project would probably not have survived, simply due to the fact that there would have been few reasons to stick with it. It's not just about what code is out there, and you should know that.

>Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against).

Only in regard to changes to DTrace and ZFS. Still totally fine to build proprietary versions of BSDs that include those pieces.

I won't go so far as the grandparent post here, but I'm one of those developers that couldn't give half a care about "user freedom". It's nice to have source as a developer, but my motivation has never been "freedom", insofar as using and understanding the software, so I understand where he's coming from in his complaints about the GPL. As a developer, it's more constraining than the permissive licenses out there. To some, that's a good thing.

Post reply on HN