Perfect case for a megacorp destroying open source plus business models. I start to hate amazon with a passion. Craziest thing is they are not paying taxes in Europe though they dominate the market.
Amazon needs be broken up. It's too big and too mighty.
OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
271–280 of 438 posts
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#272Naive aside, but why would I want to use ElasticSearch or OpenSearch over Solr? Are ES and Solr not both based on Lucene?
In all three cases, Lucene is used as a "low level" (Java) API which provides search capabilities. OS, ES and Solr turn Lucene into a server, with features like horizontal scaling (ES Cluster, Solr Cloud). The major differences are in how well that all works, how easy it is to administer, how much caching and optimization is done on top of Lucene, etc. I haven't extensively used ES, but I've used Solr a lot (and cont…
I've used both and cannot think of a reason why I would use Solr again, besides licensing.
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's the freedom to run it anywhere. It's the freedom to run it anywhere and make changes to it that you don't contribute back : 1. Amazon wants to make private changes to the management layer for their cloud offering and not share those. 2. ES doesn't want that, so the 7.11+ license restricts it. 3. Amazon doesn't want to have to explain to their customers why their ES offering is stuck on v7.10, so th…
Err, SSPL which Elasticsearch is licensed under isn't AGPL - it's a viral, proprietary license - not quite the copyleft we'd want if we wanted a fair playing field between all actors working on it.
If you think this is about Elastic caring about openness and freedom, ask yourself why they don't drop the CLA for a DCO and let themselves be beholden to the same terms
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
The SSPL literally violates Freedom 0. > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). And though we're talking about open source instead of free software, without Freedom 0, the software still might as well be proprietary. Edit: It also violates Rules 1, 5, 6 & 9 of the OSD. So no, let's not call it "open source"
Could you provide a link to explain how it violates "Rules 1, 5, 6 & 9 of the OSD"? Thanks
Common freaking sense reading.
If you can't use the software because you're a cloud provider, that's rules 1, 5 and 6 easy.
If using it forces you to relicense all of your code under the SSPL that's rule 9.
It is well known at this point that the SSPL withdrew their request for recognition to the OSI because they do not meet the rules of the OSD.
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#275I think this thread is much about shared source licenses like SSPL vs. "orthodox" open source licenses like GPL.
Based on the link below it seems to me the difference is that SSPL etc. have a clause which prevents me from making money by selling the use of the licensed software over the network for instance.
GPL puts some rather strict rules on users of copyleft software, mainly that you MUST distribute your modifications with the same license.
What I don't quite get is why adding a rule that says "if you make this software usable over the network you must make it usable for free" would be considered categorically less ethical than GPL.
GPL says you must give out your modifications for free. SSPL says you must also give out the rights to use that software for free as well.
Isn't SSPL more ethical in the sense that it requires you to give out more for free?
https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/29/the-crusade-against-open-s...
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really price gouging for bandwidth? Or is bandwidth just really expensive in general? I honestly don't know. I would assume if it was actually much cheaper one of the cloud's would undercut the other to get customers.
It really is price gouging - bandwidth is actually cheap. A couple of comparisons: Oracle Cloud give you 10TB of bandwidth for free, with overage charged at around €7.5/TB. You can rent a VPS from the likes of Hetzner, and they will throw in 2-20TB of bandwidth for free, with overage charged at something like €1/TB - AWS charge an eye-watering €125 for each TB! I think the reason the big 3 (AWS, Azure, GCP) still cha…
I would say that it's two simple factors:
1. High bandwidth charges are an effective form of lock-in. Once your data is there, it's prohibitive to move it out again.
2. Bandwidth use is very poorly understood in many businesses, compared with simpler metrics like storage, memory, and CPU. AWS can run razor-thin margins on things that people easily compare to on-prem or VPS-style offerings, and then make the money back in areas like network traffic, fine-grained monitoring, and other items that as less obvious.
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#277What is the sell for ES over something like the fulltext search built into Postgres, considering that the cost of adding another dependency is not insignificant?
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#278> and we don’t ask for a contributor license agreement (CLA) Makes me wonder what these are for (copyright transfer) and why they decided it’s not needed. It also makes me wonder if this sort of thing has ever been taken/tested in court or if it’s paranoid friction with little value add.
Eric S. Raymond is against them, but also argues that they are harmful--as opposed to just useless--because if they ever got to court, a jurist would look at the practices of the community to decide whether such a thing is common enough that they should be required. [1]
I know GNU does it (at least for Emacs) under the reason that the FSF can go after any GPL violation only if it is the clear copyright holder, but no such case exists, to my knowledge.
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In fact, Amazon contributes very little to open source in general, considering how much they take from it I don’t think this is a fact. Amazon seems to contribute pretty significantly according to the pages [0,1] they put out that describes their contributions. Not to mention their membership in OSS foundations like Linux Foundation. [2] You have the caveat about in relation to benefit they gain, but that’s pretty…
The absolute claim, aside from being at home in a rant on HN, comes from a cursory glance at https://github.com/amzn , weighted by contributors and popularity, and compared to companies of similar size. Google, Microsoft and Facebook all build and maintain multiple open source projects that are hugely popular with people who use them outside of the company sandboxes. For example, people benefit from React without Fac…
> Well, a team of amazing engineers in Romania did. I have no personal insight into the matter, but it seems like they operate relatively independently from the AWS profit machine.
Amazon and AWS is a massive multinational corporation with development teams around the world. Including Romania, where we had a dev center for a very long time: http://romania.amazon.com/#/
There is no such thing as the AWS profit machine. All dev teams around the world operate with similar levels of autonomy and responsibility. It's just that some of them are working on super internal systems, some on super external, and some open source. Some make a ton of money, and some don't make any, but are beneficial to the overall developer experience/ecosystem, and so make sense.
Re: OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
The absolute claim, aside from being at home in a rant on HN, comes from a cursory glance at https://github.com/amzn , weighted by contributors and popularity, and compared to companies of similar size. Google, Microsoft and Facebook all build and maintain multiple open source projects that are hugely popular with people who use them outside of the company sandboxes. For example, people benefit from React without Fac…
When I think of Google I think of Go, Angular, protobuf, Bazel, Dart, Flutter, Android, Chromium, Kubernetes, Tensorflow, etc. When I think of MS I think of C#, TypeScript, VSCode, .NET When I think of Facebook I think of React, Flux, Jest, PyTorch, GraphQL, Haxl When I think of Apple I think of Swift, WebKit When I think of Amazon...I can't really think of anything
I really don't understand this argument. Why do you think Facebook and Google have so many open source contributions? Is it really out of the goodness of their hearts? Or is it because that was part of their DELIBERATE STRATEGY to attract talent and use OSS as part of marketing outreach.
Microsoft's core business is developer tooling. In the 90's and early 2000's that could be closed-source and proprietary. By the 2010s it was clear that the only way to operate with the kind of tools they have is to be open source, so they pivoted. But their goal is still business.
Google built Kubernetes as a platform play to compete with AWS and Azure - brilliantly - by feeding engineer fears about "lock-in", giving them a set of tools that they could justify feeling "free", and then when the engineers invariably said "this is too complicated to build, maintain, and operate" they turned around and sold a GCP managed kubernetes solution! After all, who better to operate Kubernetes than the team that built it, amirite?
Android is the same play just competing with closed-source iOS instead of AWS.
Facebook built GraphQL for developers on THEIR Platform.
Apple built Swift for developers on THEIR platform.
Examples like this are just as cynical and capitalistic profit-driven as AWS "open sourcing" an SDK for interacting with AWS.