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

AWS gives open source the middle finger?

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 297 posts

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#61

Post by fogetti »

whoisjuan wrote: post #28
fogetti wrote: post #21

Very well put. I already found disgusting what AWS did with Dynamodb (adding key-eviction, etc as a catch-up with MDB) but this is even more hideous.

MongoDB has a terrible reputation when it comes to scalability and support. If you search you can find a bunch of horror stories. I don't have any angle to condemn or support this move, but it definitely seems like a response to what AWS customers and the market were asking for: "Give us a managed MongoDB or MongoDB-like service that doesn't suck"

I find a bunch of horror stories about DynamoDB and PostgreSQL too. Your point is? How is that even related to the fact that AWS is basically piggybacking on MongoDB-s R&D effort and brand recognition?

Also it's clear that you have zero knowledge about Mongodb hosted services. Because otherwise you would know that very good supported hosted services exist which are 100% compatible with AWS (beside MDB Atlas).

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#62

Post by fogetti »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #47
fogetti wrote: post #21

Very well put. I already found disgusting what AWS did with Dynamodb (adding key-eviction, etc as a catch-up with MDB) but this is even more hideous.

You found it disgusting that a software vendor decided to implement features in order to match competitors in the space? That's... how product development works.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I am not gonna repeat myself. Read my previous comments on the topic.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#65

Post by zodiac »

fogetti wrote: post #56
int_19h wrote: post #29

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. MongoDB found that objectionable, and changed the license such that Amazon would either have to pay, or stop using it. Amazon stopped using it, and started using its own in-house implementation instead (presumably because it was cheaper to develop it than to pay MongoDB). So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choi…

Yeah, I don't understand it either. There is a company which puts 300 M$ effort into developing something and then another company is using the first company's brand recognition to get a competitive edge while offering zero added value (And no, hosting mongodb in AWS not a new thing, only uninformed people would assume so. When I look around I find services like Scalegrid or MDB Atlas itself which is exactly the thin…

Even assuming that AWS adds no value, what exactly is wrong with offering a "no value added" hosting service and charging for it?

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#66

Post by kerng »

notyourwork wrote: post #14
Pfhreak wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon reserved the right to take ownership of my project and all related IP at any time (including after leaving the company.) I was also forbidden from working with anyone outside of my org on the projects. There were no exceptions allowed. It was considerably more restrictive than any company I've worked at elsewhere.

I'm aware of Amazon's policies. Most companies have similar clauses.

Nope, first time ever I hear about something such restrictive. That by itself would be a reason for me to not sign an employment contract with Amazon.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#67

Post by arbie »

peterwwillis wrote: post #40

From the movie "Revolution OS" [1], Richard Stallman explaining Copyleft: "If we put the software in the public domain, somebody else would be able to make a little bit of changes and turn that into a proprietary software package, which means that the users would be running our software, but they wouldn't have freedom to cooperate and share." "And what we do is, we say, this software is copyrighted and we, the author…

> Could have gotten free fixes from the biggest lab in the world

Wasn't this one of the main points of contention, though, in addition to not purchasing a commerical license? Amazon not upstreaming (m)any of the fixes?

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#68

Post by TheDong »

Bahamut wrote: post #16
spectre256 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I "accidentally" worked at amazon for a few weeks when a company I had just joined was acquired by them. I knew it was time to start looking when I was informed that I had to get prior permission to do ANY open source contributions even on my own hardware on my own time. That's just not feasible logistically and above and beyond the general "don't write open source that competes with us or on our our time/hardware wi…

Problem is, you could potentially encroach on a big company's interests without knowing so, i.e. they're working in [insert space] in secret, or create an ethical issue for the company. Truth is, excepting maybe Netflix, the rest of FAANG requires you to get approvals.

Every company that is based on california, or that employs you in california, is better.

No matter what the non-compete says, if you're in CA, you can use your own hardware and non-work time to develop anything that doesn't directly compete with your employer/dayjob and doesn't use trade secrets/IP from the company.

Amazon though is mostly based in Washington, where no such law exists, so sweeping non-competes are legal.

The above is the reason that there is a difference between various FAANG companies. Even if the company policy requires you to get approval, if it really isn't a work-related piece of code, you can simply tell them to pound sand and CA will have your back.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#69

Post by wyldfire »

spectre256 wrote: post #10
Pfhreak wrote: post #3

I left AWS after six years of working there wholly because of their restrictive policies about developing software in your spare time -- especially if you were thinking about working on a game. I recognize this article is about a product offering of AWS, and not their internal policies towards contributing to open source, but the two are linked in my mind and I'm not all surprised to see a headline like this.

I "accidentally" worked at amazon for a few weeks when a company I had just joined was acquired by them. I knew it was time to start looking when I was informed that I had to get prior permission to do ANY open source contributions even on my own hardware on my own time. That's just not feasible logistically and above and beyond the general "don't write open source that competes with us or on our our time/hardware wi…

> I knew it was time to start looking when I was informed that I had to get prior permission to do ANY open source contributions even on my own hardware on my own time.

This attitude seems kinda common, unfortunately. The critical issue is probably what the boundaries for 'work for hire' are. CA law [1] offers protections. Spolsky [2] offers detailed real-world context.

[1] http://law.justia.com/california/codes/lab/2870-2872.html

[2] http://www.brightjourney.com/q/working-company-intellectual-...

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#70

Post by robbyt »

fogetti wrote: post #56
int_19h wrote: post #29

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. MongoDB found that objectionable, and changed the license such that Amazon would either have to pay, or stop using it. Amazon stopped using it, and started using its own in-house implementation instead (presumably because it was cheaper to develop it than to pay MongoDB). So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choi…

Yeah, I don't understand it either. There is a company which puts 300 M$ effort into developing something and then another company is using the first company's brand recognition to get a competitive edge while offering zero added value (And no, hosting mongodb in AWS not a new thing, only uninformed people would assume so. When I look around I find services like Scalegrid or MDB Atlas itself which is exactly the thin…

Realistically, I think that a large portion of that 300M went to sales and marketing at MongoDB... However, I agree with everything else you said.
Post reply on HN