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

Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 140 posts

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#61

Post by [deleted] »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #27
tecleandor wrote: post #11

They still have linked their OpenCollective account, where they have raised $10K and still have a balance of $5K. [0] It's not a lot in the great scheme of things, but, have they been using a platform that's seemingly built for communities and open source to bootstrap their business? Because this is not a 'open core' situation. They just closed the repo and ran away. If they had that idea all along, I feel like it ha…

Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!? They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant. Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why…

[deleted]

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#62

Post by jayofdoom »

hrmtst93837 wrote: post #25
jayofdoom wrote: post #22

More reason to run your infrastructure using open source software in your own datacenter. OpenStack has been around for closing in on two decades, running clouds and being mostly governance-drama-free. It's not surprising that a proprietary ecosystem built on open source software locked up behind a gate doesn't make a worthwhile ecosystem for building open source tooling against.

[flagged]

I'm saying not that OpenStack can replace LocalStack, but instead that LocalStack, by building a project on top of proprietary APIs, set themselves up to fail.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#63

Post by jayofdoom »

egorfine wrote: post #56
jayofdoom wrote: post #22

More reason to run your infrastructure using open source software in your own datacenter. OpenStack has been around for closing in on two decades, running clouds and being mostly governance-drama-free. It's not surprising that a proprietary ecosystem built on open source software locked up behind a gate doesn't make a worthwhile ecosystem for building open source tooling against.

> More reason to run your infrastructure using open source software in your own datacenter Until they stop being open source. Like, you know, LocalStack.

There's a reason I point out the longevity of OpenStack. As a project, it has significant corporate sponsorship and policies to ensure that one entity can't take over control of it. For instance; the OpenStack Technical Committee is never permitted to have a majority membership made up of a single entity's employees. This means that even though Red Hat, at this stage in it's development, has a majority of contribution, the project itself can never be taken over by a single entity.

People find project governance, and particularly "corporate" involvement in open source to be distasteful -- but in my experience, and OpenStack is a winning example of this -- setting up good boundaries to let companies work together has proven to be sustainable.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#64

Post by jayofdoom »

UltraSane wrote: post #54
jayofdoom wrote: post #22

More reason to run your infrastructure using open source software in your own datacenter. OpenStack has been around for closing in on two decades, running clouds and being mostly governance-drama-free. It's not surprising that a proprietary ecosystem built on open source software locked up behind a gate doesn't make a worthwhile ecosystem for building open source tooling against.

OpenStack is one of the most complicated platforms in existence and finding suitably talented admins is very hard.

This is true, sadly -- but the documentation exists and community is friendly to those who wanna build those skills. It's extremely difficult to build something the size of OpenStack without making it so configurable that operating it needs a decoder ring. I'm doing everything I can in Ironic to make it more friendly and flexible out of the box, but it's a difficult problem to solve.

I always tell people: OpenStack can do almost anything you want... if you can configure it to do so :).

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#65

Post by lmz »

jayofdoom wrote: post #63
egorfine wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More reason to run your infrastructure using open source software in your own datacenter Until they stop being open source. Like, you know, LocalStack.

There's a reason I point out the longevity of OpenStack. As a project, it has significant corporate sponsorship and policies to ensure that one entity can't take over control of it. For instance; the OpenStack Technical Committee is never permitted to have a majority membership made up of a single entity's employees. This means that even though Red Hat, at this stage in it's development, has a majority of contributio…

> This means that even though Red Hat, at this stage in it's development, has a majority of contribution, the project itself can never be taken over by a single entity.

If it's one company with the majority of contributions then they can just stop contributing (or put their efforts into a proprietary fork) and all that you're left with is the code and the name. Which is maybe better than "just the code", but not by much.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#67

Post by switchbak »

henriks wrote: post #37
atls wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a complete replacement, but if you're in a Python ecosystem, you might find Moto to be of interest. https://github.com/getmoto/moto

at least some parts of localstack seemed to be built on moto, based on a brief look at some point

They were, but they moved off them - probably with a move away from OSS as a long term plan.

I've used Localstack extensively for ~7 years, and I will rejoice when I can finally be free of it. I've found it to be low quality software, and full of bugs.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#68

Post by KronisLV »

reactordev wrote: post #51
skeledrew wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up More like a company took advantage of a community that expected their freely offered labor to not be commercialized at any point in time without making available said works in a fully free vector as well, as that's an implicit expectation behind "open source".

Naive fools… Companies stand to turn a profit. OSS is here to help enable that or push the goal posts. It’s not a charity unless the org feels charitable. Sure, non-profits exist but they were never one of those.

I think the comment on corpos is good, but calling the naive people fools might be unnecessary - it’s probably not their fault nobody told them about this sort of thing before and learning that lesson is probably disappointing enough already.

It’s unfortunate that this keeps happening to projects like MinIO and others too.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#69

Post by waterTanuki »

jayofdoom wrote: post #62
hrmtst93837 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm saying not that OpenStack can replace LocalStack, but instead that LocalStack, by building a project on top of proprietary APIs, set themselves up to fail.

LocalStack built a mock of proprietary APIs, not on top. There's a distinct difference.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#70

Post by inaros »

tecleandor wrote: post #11

They still have linked their OpenCollective account, where they have raised $10K and still have a balance of $5K. [0] It's not a lot in the great scheme of things, but, have they been using a platform that's seemingly built for communities and open source to bootstrap their business? Because this is not a 'open core' situation. They just closed the repo and ran away. If they had that idea all along, I feel like it ha…

Its JBoss again....
Post reply on HN