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

71–80 of 140 posts

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

#71

Post by inaros »

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…

They are going about to learn the same lesson Elastic learned with OpenSearch...

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

#72

Post by inaros »

lukevp wrote: post #59
armchairhacker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter that the previous code is still available…The original maintainers are gone, and users will have to rely on someone else to pick up the work, or maintain it themselves. It does matter: popular products have been forked or the open-source component was reused. E.g. Terraform and OpenTofu, Redis and Redict, Docker and Colima (partly MinIO and RustFS; the latter is a full rewrite, but since the forme…

I thought Valkey was the blessed fork of Redis. Is Redict better in some way?

No

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

#74

Post by mmarian »

Wrote a blog post advising people not to run this sort of stuff last year: https://developerwithacat.com/blog/032025/test-containers-ba... It's just too much hassle to replicate cloud environments locally, just use unit tests and dev environments.

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

#75

Post by drzaiusx11 »

iaaan wrote: post #6

I evangelized localstack at my company a while back, but as we integrated it deeper into our CI test runs we started running into more and more things they don't support, and it feels impossible to get any attention from their support/devs despite being paying customers. Their Cloud Pod and ephemeral instance features in particular feel pretty half-baked and not very useful at the moment. Fun tangent: it's pretty eas…

Which services weren't supported in your use case? Currently with our enterprise contract we use all the usual suspects:

AppConfig, DynamoDB, ElastiCache, Kinesis streams, RDS/Aurora with innodb engine, S3, SecretsManager, SNS, and SQS. I'm probably forgetting a few, but we haven't hit anything unsupported (yet.)

I also haven't touched any pod stuff and have no plans to. Probably just luck of the draw we didn't hit any holes or issues, but we tend not to use any esoteric features in AWS land.

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

#77

Post by drzaiusx11 »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #73

I have been working with AWS for almost a decade on professionally and never saw a reason not just to run test and develop in a real isolated AWS account with security policies (guardrails) and give out accounts with budget alerts.

We all have personal AWS environments and use them as need arises at my org. Doesn't stop the fact cloudformation deployments take inordinate amounts of time for seemingly no reason. Basic shit like pushing a new ECS task takes 10+ minutes alone. Need to push an IAM policy change by itself? 5 minutes. Maybe it's the CDK, but we've only been on that a couple years, prior we used a ansible and cloudformation templates directly but it wasn't any better. This compounds with each dev and each change across multiple stacks. Not only that cloudformation easily gets "stuck" in unrecoverable states when rollback fails and you have to manually clean up to clean up drift which can easily eat your entire day. I'll note that our stacks have good separation by concerns, doesn't matter. A full deployment of a single ECS service easily takes 30 minutes. This is so wasteful it's absurd. I'd love to NOT have to use a shim like LocalStack but the alternative is what?

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

#78

Post by gregoryl »

KronisLV wrote: post #68
reactordev wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We should return to the HN guidelines, and read it as charitably as possible.

I'm interpreting it as closer to pity, rather than genuine criticism =)

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

#79

Post by overfeed »

ianbutler wrote: post #55
jrflowers wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you’re trying to build a system of ethics around being annoyed by OSS maintainers not working for free in perpetuity. Having access to Apache licensed code that you can build off of is better than never having access to any code at all. Anything else about values or respect has to be inferred or imagined and has no bearing on the software itself. Edit: Like who cares if they “wanted” to contribute to th…

That's what they always do it always comes down to a sense of perpetual entitlement over the work of others, work they themselves would never do. I've had the same discussion for years now on HN. It is not unethical to decide to stop supporting something especially if you played by all the rules the entire time. No one is owed perpetual labor and they completely disregard localstack has been oss for something like 10…

> I've had the same discussion for years now on HN. It is not unethical to decide to stop supporting something especially if you played by all the rules the entire time.

What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism.

Companies are never honest about how they intend to use CLAs and pretend its for the furtherance of open source ethos. Thankfully, there's an innate right to fork entire projects after rug pulls, whixh makes them calculated gambles amd nor a quick heist.

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

#80

Post by rorychatt »

jzelinskie wrote: post #28

An emulator for integration testing against the major cloud providers seems like it should: 1. be table-stakes for a SDK from the cloud providers themselves 2. have the obvious home in a foundation like the CNCF; how else could you be "cloud native" afterall?

ha. Cloud Native ≠ Native Cloud Services.

I always found it odd that the marketing successfully pivoted the term Cloud Native from meaning 'managed services consumed as APIs over the internet' to a generic umbrella for self-hosted versions of the cloud control planes and container management tooling.

That isn't a dig at the particular tools themselves - they just aren't... you know... cloud.

Post reply on HN