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

Elasticsearch is open source, again

elastic.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 473 posts

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#301

Post by cmiles74 »

ezekg wrote: post #37
foxyv wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was so that AWS would create their own name for their fork: > we changed the license, knowing it would result in a fork of Elasticsearch with a different name and a different trajectory. It’s a long story. I think the name of the fork is now OpenSearch.

Am I the only one not buying this reasoning? Seems like there's more than is being said, otherwise they would have said this by now. I'd reckon that ELv2 had friction that couldn't be easily overcome without OSS or at the very least DOSP [0]. I personally experienced said friction with ELv2, so makes me curious. [0]: https://opensource.org/dosp

It was crazy for Amazon to name their hosted search product Elasticsearch! At that time, Amazon clearly felt the name had some value.

I agree that this is probably not the picture of the huge win they are painting. Still, it must have been frustrating for Elastic to have to explain to potential customers that they weren't reselling an Amazon product.

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252513588/Amazon-drops-E...

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#302

Post by nemo44x »

sickmate wrote: post #224
cortesoft wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one ever accused Amazon of breaking the law. The issue that Elastic had is that their entire business model was offering a managed elasticsearch solution. Amazon then created their own offering of the same thing, but of course since it is Amazon it was more tightly coupled with AWS and benefited from being a native AWS solution. There was simply no way for Elastic to compete with that. Now, there can be a lot of o…

>The issue that Elastic had is that their entire business model was offering a managed elasticsearch solution. Amazon then created their own offering of the same thing Amazon first offered Elasticsearch as a managed service in 2015. Elastic began offering managed services in 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticsearch#Managed_services

That’s not true. Elastic acquired Found in 2015 and immediately offered their managed Elasticsearch service. It was publicly announced at their user conference early that year.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#303

Post by luceneuser »

Raed667 wrote: post #5
foxyv wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was so that AWS would create their own name for their fork: > we changed the license, knowing it would result in a fork of Elasticsearch with a different name and a different trajectory. It’s a long story. I think the name of the fork is now OpenSearch.

what is preventing AWS from dropping OpenSearch and going back to just selling Elastic ?

It will not happen. OpenSearch grows fast in the last four years. There is no incentive to go back to ES.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#304

Post by willcipriano »

_pdp_ wrote: post #265
adrianco wrote: post #257

Here’s the initial AWS response to the license change that they made in 2018, which I helped write. At the time we didn’t think a new license made sense, as AGPL is sufficient to block AWS from using the code, but the core of the issue was that AWS wanted to contribute security features to the open source project and Elastic wanted to keep security as an enterprise feature, so rejected all the approaches AWS made at…

Unfortunately many companies charge extra for security where security should be the default. Truth to be told there some some situations where extra security costs could be justified but there are not many if charge is necessary it should be considered as a temporary measure. My $0.02.

[flagged]

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#305

Post by sanderjd »

redwood wrote: post #295
adrianco wrote: post #257

Here’s the initial AWS response to the license change that they made in 2018, which I helped write. At the time we didn’t think a new license made sense, as AGPL is sufficient to block AWS from using the code, but the core of the issue was that AWS wanted to contribute security features to the open source project and Elastic wanted to keep security as an enterprise feature, so rejected all the approaches AWS made at…

Out of curiosity, did you pursue a rev share model with Elastic (Co) for your Elastic managed service? I guess that's not something thay can be discussed openly but recognizing you probably had 10x their revenue in the managed service and another 10x their revenue in compute behind the OSS, I wonder if there could have been a proactive happy middle ground found years ago. I suppose that they might not have accepted s…

> But I do think it'd be a good look for AWS to proactively help these companies.

But how much value does "a good look" have to AWS?

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#306

Post by [deleted] »

nklmilojevic wrote: post #275
nullify88 wrote: post #230

Since Elasticsearch changed their license, Loki has also appeared as a competitor and the Grafana machine have released a suite of tools that cover the observability categories. It may also be that the license change encouraged users to look for alternatives and there are more now than just being graylog and Elasticsearch. Clickhouse has proven to also be a very capable database for logs and there are stacks that use…

Loki and Clickhouse are not really excelling in what ES is. For example, full text search. VictoriaLogs is very promising in this regard!

[deleted]

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#307

Post by lsaferite »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #290
thelittleone wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including the recent trend of access to SOC2 reports requiring an "Enterprise" tier subscription.

In fact I like the change. This allows them to make almost everything free of charge to individual/small companies, but could fund it from revenue of larger organization, who generally don't have problem paying.

And what of small companies that need things like SOC2 reports from vendors?

If you want to work with large companies, being SOC certified makes it easier. Part of that is ensuring your vendors are also compliant with good standards and that's best done with SOC reports.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#308

Post by lolinder »

maxloh wrote: post #262
lolinder wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably mixing up the SSPL with Hashicorp's version of the BSL, which does talk about competition [0]. [0] https://www.hashicorp.com/bsl

It is authored by MariaDB, actually. Hashicorp is just one of the company using it.

Yes, but MariaDB's doesn't have that clause—it's part of the Additional Use Grant that Hashicorp added.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#309

Post by julesvr »

thelittleone wrote: post #272
_pdp_ wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately many companies charge extra for security where security should be the default. Truth to be told there some some situations where extra security costs could be justified but there are not many if charge is necessary it should be considered as a temporary measure. My $0.02.

Including the recent trend of access to SOC2 reports requiring an "Enterprise" tier subscription.

I have the same problem at the moment with Supabase. We're a startup trying to get ISO 27001 certified and need to upload Supabase's SOC2 report to Vanta, but we can't because we're on the Pro tier and they don't give access to that, even after emailing them. It's ridiculous.

Re: Elasticsearch is open source, again

#310

Post by ensignavenger »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #290
thelittleone wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including the recent trend of access to SOC2 reports requiring an "Enterprise" tier subscription.

In fact I like the change. This allows them to make almost everything free of charge to individual/small companies, but could fund it from revenue of larger organization, who generally don't have problem paying.

I don't mind them requiring a paid tier to get the detailed compliance level reports, but requiring the most uber expensive "call us" plan is probably too much for many smaller companies that might still benefit from easier SOC2 complaince.
Post reply on HN