Live data from Hacker News

I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

fourlightyears.blogspot.com

581–590 of 684 posts

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#581
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please educate instead of insult. happy to hear your response. that is why we’re here, after all.

Sure. CFOs optimise for fewer vendor relationships; fewer invoices, fewer things to talk about during compliance, less reconciliation overhead. Consolidated spend also improves their negotiating position. So when AWS offers good-enough Elasticsearch bundled into an existing relationship, it wins regardless of whether the original is better supported or better value. "More efficiently" means procurement efficiency, no…

As someone who has had to deal with vendor management at a financial services company, I couldn't agree more.

We were going through a process to make vendor management more standardised and it reached a point where we couldn't even consider adding new vendors.

Adding new services to an existing vendor had minimal paperwork and approvals. As long as you had budget for it, you're unlikely to get any push back.

New vendors required tons of back and forth with legal. Infosec reviews. Additional costboards. Having to justify the vendor to multiple groups. Working out how you get them onboarded into the finance system. Once they're onboarded, we would then have additional paperwork to do periodic reviews to rate the vendor and make sure they're not a critical dependency that will bite us in the ass.

I've only worked with AWS and GCP, but they also throw training and credits at us, too. This could be personalised 2-day classroom events just for our company. There's a huge amount of perceived value for funnelling money through a cloud provider.

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#582
post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but at the very least, Amazon would need to contribute their code back, so it's not a complete loss.

That is incorrect, the FSF licenses would require Amazon contribute code forward to their users, not back to the project. Also, Amazon were already contributing code back when these companies changed their licenses, the companies don't care about code contributions, just money.

Those greedy software companies only care about money, unlike the gracious Amazon that's all about code contributions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#583
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of these projects work on a business model where they open-source their core product, and provide advanced services, installation, maintenance or fully-managed services around their product. AWS was bypassing them by providing fully-managed services. On this, I am on the side of the people behind the projects. Basically AWS was eating their lunch. They had no choice but to change the licenses.

> They had no choice but to change the licenses. Then why did they advertise themselves as open-source efforts when they weren't? They should have been the best possible providers of managed service offerings given they wrote the software they'd be managing, no? Why are monopolies OK here but not elsewhere? Choosing a hard-to-win business model is not supposed to be a choice that guarantees you business income.

I've got a field of strawberries, and I put up a sign, "free to pick by yourself, or pay 10$ for a pre-picked basket". Then Amazon comes in, starts sending their workers to pick my strawberries, and sell them for 5$ a basket. Was I then lying when I advertised the strawberries as free in my original sign, if I now want to change it to stop them from doing that?

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#584
post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All good points. What do you recommend for the "small potatoes"?

Hetzner. You won't get much better support, and you will have to deal with EU legislative nonsense, but it won't be hard to do that if you are actually small. Why do I say Hetzner? It's very budget friendly and has a very small list of services so its much harder to screw yourself into a situation where its hard to leave.

For individuals, probably.

For SMBs spending $10k - $100k a month, I would absolutely advise against that.

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#585
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competition would mean Amazon creating their own software. Taking software others made and using your monopoly eco-system and scale to drive the original creator out of the game kills the product. Many support breaking up Amazon so others could compete not killing small entities and growing Amazon.

There's a lesson there then, isn't there? Use GPL

Use AGPL or SSPL or make a better worded version of SSPL

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL has no effect on this issue. For service providers like AWS, who provide the service not the software, the GPL doesn't require them to do anything differently than with more permissive licenses.

++ I think the GPL has become somewhat obsolete because of this causing it create to completely nonsensical scenarios. For instance I can't comply with the GPL and add vanilla Stockfish (the currently strongest chess engine, licensed under GPL) to a chess app released on the Apple store, yet somebody can slightly modify the engine, keep all those modifications proprietary, and sell access to the engine on the same Ap…

Some courts [which?] have read things into open source licenses that aren't actually there, usually on the side of the user because that's obviously what the people who wrote the licenses intended. It's not impossible that GPL could force Amazon to give out their software.

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#587
post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not. According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem. Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?

Why isn't this a problem for other databases then? I'm sure most cloud sell some MariaDB services. Why would they be able to profit from it? It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.

> Why isn't this a problem for other databases then?

It is?

- MongoDB went from AGPL to SSPL

- Redis went from BSD to SSPL

- Elasticsearch went from AGPL to SSPL

- CockroachDB went from Apache to BSL

- TimescaleDB went from Apache to Apache + TLS

- Graylog went from GPL to SSPL

> It's because the business model for ES is direct competition with AWS and others, and they got out competed. So they had to play licenses games to try and level the field.

That's why intellectual property law exist. If I spent years writing a book and you were allowed to copy it and sell it then obviously you're going to "out compete" me by default. You didn't incur any costs in producing the thing you're selling, duh!

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#589
post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hetzner. You won't get much better support, and you will have to deal with EU legislative nonsense, but it won't be hard to do that if you are actually small. Why do I say Hetzner? It's very budget friendly and has a very small list of services so its much harder to screw yourself into a situation where its hard to leave.

For individuals, probably. For SMBs spending $10k - $100k a month, I would absolutely advise against that.

A lot of those are spending 10-100k a month when they could be spending 1k-10k a month with a more lean infra

Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not. According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem. Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit?

> According to the original license they are both entitled to do that, that's the problem. I really don't see how Amazon is to blame for this problem, they weren't the ones who picked the license. > Do you think it's sustainable for one company to make the software for free and another one to sell it for profit? They both sell it for profit, let the most profitable one win.

Because you don't see AWS as having sort of moral or ethical duties. I see all companies and people as having moral and ethical duties.
Post reply on HN