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

MinIO is now in maintenance-mode

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 338 posts

Re: MinIO is now in maintenance-mode

#55

Post by sph »

uroni wrote: post #42

I've been working on https://github.com/uroni/hs5 as a replacement with similar goals to early minio. The core is stable at this point, but the user/policy management and the web interface is still in the works.

Good time to post a Show HN for your project then

Re: MinIO is now in maintenance-mode

#56

Post by giancarlostoro »

Kerrick wrote: post #37
0x073 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For enterprise support and actively maintained versions, please see MinIO AIStor." Commercial only, they will replace the agpl contributions from external people. (Or at least they will say that)

I don't understand. They've seen the contributions. How can they possibly do a clean-room implementation to avoid copyright infringement? (Let alone how tangled up in the history of the codebase they must be...)

I hope some contributors get together and sue. ;)

Re: MinIO is now in maintenance-mode

#58

Post by digikata »

dardeaup wrote: post #34
mr-karan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could perhaps checkout https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/

I've done some preliminary testing with garage and I was pleasantly surprised. It worked as expected and didn't run into any gotchas.

Garage is really good for core S3, the only thing I ran into was it didn't support object tagging. It could be considered maybe a more esoteric corner of the S3 api, but minio does support it. Especially if you're just mapping for a test api, object tagging is most likely an unneeded feature anyway.

It's a "Misc" endpoint in the Garage docs here: https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/documentation/reference-manua...

Re: MinIO is now in maintenance-mode

#59

Post by mbreese »

candiddevmike wrote: post #38

It sucks that S3 somehow became the defacto object storage interface, the API is terrible IMO. Too many headers, too many unknowns with support. WebDAV isn't any better, but I feel like we missed an opportunity here for a standardized interface.

It was better. When it first came out, it was a pretty simple API, at least simpler than alternatives (IIRC, I could just be thinking with nostalgia).

I think it's only gotten as complicated as it has as new features have been organically added. I'm sure there are good use cases for everything, but it does beg the question -- is a better API possible for object storage? What's the minimal API required? GET/POST/DELETE?

Post reply on HN