341–350 of 585 posts
Render also pushes MinIO as their recommended equivalent to S3 for their customers (using docker), similar to Bucketeer on Heroku. https://render.com/docs/deploy-minio Hopefully this will finally push Render to build their own S3 wrapper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we need a fork? As an example, ffmpeg is source only for mac and windows, which just means someone else is building and distributing binaries.
They changed their license to AGPL, removed features (Web UI, etc.) and now they don't provide docker images/binaries. It's their project but; what's next?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are entitled to stop building docker images. Their users are entitled to get salty and go find alternative products. If that is Minio’s expectation, then all is good, but it seems kinda counterproductive? I never liked minio, but I certainly wouldn’t use it after seeing them remove features.
>I certainly wouldn’t use it after seeing them remove features. All sorts of projects remove features all the time though, even the linux kernel drops support for hardware that may or may not be in use somewhere >Their users are entitled to get salty and go find alternative products. People are entitled to feeling things of course, others will only point out that it may not be justified and that the user is liable to…
I think Minio is the only Go client for S3 API and S3-compatible APIs. I cannot say I liked using it, but I had no choice. Nowadays I run my own file storage with my own API, so I no longer care. But if anyone wants to run their own file storage(so not a client), there is https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you think otherwise then you should make your terms of service explicit FOSS licenses already do that: they shout at you in all-caps that the authors PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Meanwhile the licenses don't say anything about communities. For better or worse, OSI convinced everyone that "open source" is synonymous with using specific licenses that meet t…
> how can it be a "fundamental misunderstanding of OSS" to strictly interpret OSS by the terms of the licenses, which don't mention any sort of "social contract", while they do include language explicitly contrary to such expectations of users? Because free and open-source software is more than a set of licenses approved by some governing body. It is part of a social movement and ideology pursuing the open sharing of…
If I host a code repo on an otherwise static site, with no ability to contact the author or engage in a community, it is still widely considered "open source" if it uses an OSI-approved license.
Likewise if I host the same code repo on Github and disable issues and set the pull request template to say "All PRs will be closed and I will shout expletives at you for wasting my time", if it uses an OSI-approved license then it is still open source per the OSI's own definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe someone else somewhere is getting some unbelievably sweet deal but what I've seen from cloud discounting is more in the "single digit percentage" range than "2/3rds off" or something.
There are a ton of different discount options - large customers typically get between 50-60% discount based on committed spending, and AWS is pretty flexible around how that commit lands (they will allow roll overs even if they say they won't). Reserved instances get you ~70% discounts - similar to the committed spending. And my favorite - if it works for you - spot instances on EC2 come at as high as 90% off. Nobody…
Keep in mind this is the same project that removed all useful functionality from the included web UI in the community edition with the excuse that it was too much effort to maintain. This is another case of VC-funded companies pulling up the ladder behind themselves.
Is it an excuse? Maintaining code costs money, and the previous versions are provided under the license, and you're free to modify it, pull selective patches and maintain them yourself. While It'd be convenient if the license was a promise to develop and maintain features for free in perpetuity, it just isn't. I run into this in non-company backed open source projects all the time too. Some maintainer gets burned out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation, people will rely on that and will chose your software based on that expectation. You suddenly deciding that you won't be offering updated Docker images especially after a CVE and with no prior notice (except a hidden commit 4 days ago that updated the README) is approaching malicious-level actions. If they truly cared ab…
> When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though. > people will rely on that and will chose your software based on that expectation That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. > You suddenly deciding that you won't be offering updated Docker images […] is appro…
> That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though.
Note that implied contracts do exist, and sometimes expectations based on prior conduct do suffice to form an enforcable contract. In this case, I don't know whether you can reasonably make that argument, but that's never stopped enterprising lawyers before.