[dead]
MinIO repository is no longer maintained
21–30 of 397 posts
Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#22Is there not a community fork? Even as is, is it still recommended for use?
Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#23Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#24They point to AIStor as alternative. Other alternatives: https://github.com/deuxfleurs-org/garage https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs https://github.com/supabase/storage https://github.com/scality/cloudserver https://github.com/ceph/ceph Among others
Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#25[dead]
While I loath the moves to closed source you also can't fault them the hyperscalers just outcompete them with their own software.
Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#26[dead]
I don't expect free shit forever.
Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#27I ran a moderately large opensource service and my chronic back pain was cured the day I stopped maintaining the project. Working for free is not fun. Having a paid offering with a free community version is not fun. Ultimately, dealing with people who don't pay for your product is not fun. I learnt this the hard way and I guess the MinIO team learnt this as well.
Just be honest since the start that your product will eventually abandon its FOSS licence. Then people can make an informed decision. Or, if you haven't done that, do the right thing and continue to stand by what you originally promised.
Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#28Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#29AIstor. They just slap the word AI anywhere these days.
Re: MinIO repository is no longer maintained
#30I ran a moderately large opensource service and my chronic back pain was cured the day I stopped maintaining the project. Working for free is not fun. Having a paid offering with a free community version is not fun. Ultimately, dealing with people who don't pay for your product is not fun. I learnt this the hard way and I guess the MinIO team learnt this as well.
There's nothing wrong at all with charging for your product. What I do take issue with, however, is convincing everyone that your product is FOSS, waiting until people undertake a lot of work to integrate your product into their infrastructure, and then doing a bait-and-switch. Just be honest since the start that your product will eventually abandon its FOSS licence. Then people can make an informed decision. Or, if…
When you start something (startup, FOSS project, damn even marriage) you might start with the best intentions and then you can learn/change/loose interest. I find it unreasonable to "demand" clarity "at the start" because there is no such thing.
Turning it around, any company that adopts a FOSS project should be honest and pay for something if it does not accept the idea that at some point the project will change course (which obviously, does not guarantee much, because even if you pay for something they can decide to shut it down).