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

AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 969 posts

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#611

Post by riku_iki »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #598
riku_iki wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is pretty much exactly what happened to MySQL, and now we have MariaDB, which is a better and truly open source product. This is controversial example, in my understanding MySql creator requested to agree with his terms for all OSS commits, which gave him copyright rights on codebase, then sold his rights to Sun, and only then created MariaDb - OSS fork.

Where is the controversy there? Did he sign a non-compete? NextCloud and OwnCloud Jenkins and Hudson More software is good. I'd say the MariaDB-is-better conclusion is controversial since the improves to Oracle's MySQL are substantial. At least around Innodb, and disregarding their embarrassingly bad bugs.

> Where is the controversy there? Did he sign a non-compete?

Controversy is that he accepted patches from OSS contributors, but assumed his own copyright on them, then sold his rights to big corp (Sun), which (Oracle) closed some sources, it is probably not very clean behavior.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#612

Post by pradn »

sandGorgon wrote: post #591

The issue here is that it's quite impossible to compete with AWS if it offers even an inferior version of a service. Because of network egress pricing. You are most likely on AWS already. And even if elastic offers a 2x better product at 1/2 the price, your cost of traffic for an external service will easily 4x versus using AWS services. And that's really the frustration for these service providers. You can NEVER com…

And there's not a way to remove the egress pricing moat because it's so natural. Of course it costs less money to move data within a datacenter than outside of it. So, why wouldn't it cost less to do everything inside AWS? Egress pricing is probably multiples of this actual discrepancy to erect the moat even deeper.

It really does feel hopeless to run an open-source service that isn't running on an existing crowd. Perhaps that's one reason Snowflake is doing well.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#613

Post by fastball »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #397
fastball wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then Elastic should've come up with a non-Apache-2.0 license at inception. Licenses exist for a reason. The onus is on the person choosing the license to choose one which aligns with their intentions. You cannot and should not expect downstream consumers of the software to confine themselves to some subset of the actual license's allowed activities just because it's the "nice" thing to do (as of course this assumes m…

They made a mistake with their original licensing, and now they have corrected it. The comments on this post seem strangely invested in Elastic not fixing their mistake.

Right but "who is wrong" is what the disagreement is about, and if Elastic made the mistake then arguably it is them who are wrong.

In contrast, a number of people here are acting as if AWS is totally in the wrong. But the only wrong here is Elastic making the mistake and then acting as if the whole thing is AWS' fault. No, if you license your software improperly that's on you, not anyone else.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#614

Post by snikolaev »

jasontedor wrote: post #592
bawolff wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if I am a cloud provider.

Jason from Elastic here. I want to clarify this. Building a SaaS product with Elasticsearch or Kibana on the backend is okay and not prohibited, as long the service is not “managed” Elasticsearch nor Kibana. For example, a music service that uses Elasticsearch on the backend to provide music catalog search is okay. A service that offers site search powered by Elasticsearch is okay. A log search service powered by Ela…

Why didn't Elastic release some SSPL v1.1 or SSPl v2.0 with this kind of clarification? SSPL v1.0 is considered by many kind of vague in terms of p. 13 "Offering the Program as a Service".

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#615

Post by fastball »

hanniabu wrote: post #356
fastball wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then Elastic should've come up with a non-Apache-2.0 license at inception. Licenses exist for a reason. The onus is on the person choosing the license to choose one which aligns with their intentions. You cannot and should not expect downstream consumers of the software to confine themselves to some subset of the actual license's allowed activities just because it's the "nice" thing to do (as of course this assumes m…

What open source license would prevent someone from capitalizing on your project?

None. That's... kinda the point of OSS.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#616

Post by lmm »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #392
bigiain wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I _mostly_ agree here. But... I do note that the original "open source definitions" were drafted back in the late 90s (and from memory, built on older pre existing Debian docs of similar nature). The world was different back then, I wonder what the authors of those docs would have considered "user freedom" to be in the age of AWS/GAE/Azure? (I guess Stallman, for all his flaws, is a reasonable guide to what the free…

So, let's pretend I'm Amazon and I'm offering a SAAS Elasticsearch product. You need someone to manage your Elasticsearch for me, so you pay me. Internally, I'm running vanilla, unmodified Elasticsearch, which talks to a management layer of proprietary code that interfaces with the rest of AWS. What right is being violated here? You as a user can run your own Elasticsearch software; I haven't modified it and thus I d…

> What right is being violated here? You as a user can run your own Elasticsearch software; I haven't modified it and thus I don't need to publish anything specific.

I as a user can no longer fix bugs in the Elasticsearch that I'm using. So I don't have the four freedoms that copyleft is all about protecting.

> What the SSPL says is I must publicize my entire SAAS product - but the user isn't paying me to run their own Elasticsearch SAAS product, they're paying me to run Elasticsearch.

That's like "I'm not blocking you from going into the building, I'm just blocking you from going through the gate outside". The point of copyleft licenses is that you need to give the user everything they need to run (or hire someone else to run) the same software (or their patched version of it) the same way.

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#618

Post by boulos »

sandGorgon wrote: post #591

The issue here is that it's quite impossible to compete with AWS if it offers even an inferior version of a service. Because of network egress pricing. You are most likely on AWS already. And even if elastic offers a 2x better product at 1/2 the price, your cost of traffic for an external service will easily 4x versus using AWS services. And that's really the frustration for these service providers. You can NEVER com…

Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.

Just to clarify, AWS has a feature called PrivateLink [1] that charges $.01/GB transferred between a Service provider and the end customer (I thought there was a free variant for same AZ, but I seem to be wrong about that).

We offer a similar feature called VPC Peering, and in particular Private Service Access [2]. Because we can be sure that the traffic is in the same Zone (or not), talking to a third-party service in the same Zone does not incur egress charges.

But did you mean this $.01/GB or were you thinking of VM Internet / External IP pricing?

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/privatelink/

[2] https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/configure-private-services...

Re: AWS announces forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana

#620

Post by boulos »

pradn wrote: post #612
sandGorgon wrote: post #591

The issue here is that it's quite impossible to compete with AWS if it offers even an inferior version of a service. Because of network egress pricing. You are most likely on AWS already. And even if elastic offers a 2x better product at 1/2 the price, your cost of traffic for an external service will easily 4x versus using AWS services. And that's really the frustration for these service providers. You can NEVER com…

And there's not a way to remove the egress pricing moat because it's so natural. Of course it costs less money to move data within a datacenter than outside of it. So, why wouldn't it cost less to do everything inside AWS? Egress pricing is probably multiples of this actual discrepancy to erect the moat even deeper. It really does feel hopeless to run an open-source service that isn't running on an existing crowd. Pe…

See my sibling comment.

Snowflake actually has historically run as a multinenant service with access to say your S3 bucket, so the majority of data transfer is VM S3 in the same Region (so included/free).

As a snowflake customer, you would submit queries (and data ingestion) as Egress pricing (roughly $.01/GB though assuming it was using the private link or similar) and then the smallish results come back as Ingress (which AWS charges for, we do not, but whatever).

I hope someone corrects me on the AWS side (I really thought that there was a way to do zero rating for same “AZ” third-party services), but it’s not fundamental.

Post reply on HN