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

81–90 of 140 posts

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

#81

Post by inetknght »

overfeed wrote: post #79
ianbutler wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

First, if it's open source, then the contributions are still there for everyone to use.

Second, if the license allows it, then the license allows it.

Now, if the contributions were made with a contribution license to prevent it, you've got a solid argument. Otherwise you're applying your own morals in a situation where they're irrelevant.

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

#82

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

drzaiusx11 wrote: post #77
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…

I have been using a modified version of this for 8 years. I didn’t write it

https://github.com/1Strategy/fargate-cloudformation-example/...

It’s never taken 30 minutes to pass in a new parameter value for the Docker container.

Also as far as rollbacks just use —disable-rollbacks.

The only time I’ve had CFT get stuck is using custom resources when I didn’t have proper error handling and I didn’t send the failure signal back to CFT.

This is with raw CFT using SAM.

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

#83

Post by derefr »

papyrus9244 wrote: post #58
hungryhobbit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> and left all their code available, as required by OSS. IANAL, and I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't think that's required by OSS, not by the spirit of "the law", and (at least) not by GPL, MIT, and other similar mainstream licenses. The spirit of open source is: you buy (or just download for free) a binary, you get the 4 rights. Whatever happens when the developer/company stops distributing (whether at…

You only have the right to modify if you can access the source.

If you got (a snapshot of) the source along with the binary, that's fine, there's no need to keep hosting the source anywhere.

But if the company said "for source, see: our github", then that github has to stay up/public, for all the people who downloaded the binary a long time ago and are only getting around to exercising their right to modify today.

They don't need to post new versions of their software to it, of course. But they need to continue to make the source available somehow to people who were granted a right that can only be exercised if the source is made available to them.

(IIRC, some very early versions of this required you to send a physical letter to the company to get a copy of the source back on CD. That would be fine too. But they'd also have to advertise this somewhere, e.g. by stubbing the github repo and replacing it with a note that you can do that.)

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

#84

Post by pocksuppet »

derefr wrote: post #83
papyrus9244 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and left all their code available, as required by OSS. IANAL, and I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't think that's required by OSS, not by the spirit of "the law", and (at least) not by GPL, MIT, and other similar mainstream licenses. The spirit of open source is: you buy (or just download for free) a binary, you get the 4 rights. Whatever happens when the developer/company stops distributing (whether at…

You only have the right to modify if you can access the source. If you got (a snapshot of) the source along with the binary, that's fine, there's no need to keep hosting the source anywhere. But if the company said "for source, see: our github", then that github has to stay up/public, for all the people who downloaded the binary a long time ago and are only getting around to exercising their right to modify today. Th…

In GPL, it has to be valid for 3 years, but only if they're not the copyright holder.

In MIT, a.k.a. "the fuck you license" there is no requirement and they don't even have to give you source code at all.

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

#85

Post by drzaiusx11 »

armchairhacker wrote: post #41
imiric wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can people still not understand that OSS can be abused? It doesn't matter that the previous code is still available. Nobody can technically delete it from the internet, so that's hardly something they did "right". The original maintainers are gone, and users will have to rely on someone else to pick up the work, or maintain it themselves. All of this creates friction, and fragments the community. And are you not…

> 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…

To be clear, colima isn't a fork of docker. It's just the lima VM with the docker OCI runtime + cli which is FOSS and always has been. Docker Desktop is the pile of garbage you can kinda sorta replace it with, but PodMan and PodMan Desktop is closer to a clone of Docker than Colima. Colima _is_ Docker

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

#86

Post by jamesfinlayson »

redwood wrote: post #16
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…

I too was excited about the idea originally but then started realizing that they will have an increasingly untenable service area to try and maintain and mimic and it was just never going to work out.

Yeah I remember looking at it when I started a job that was all in on AWS and quickly realised that it would be much better to just stick with real AWS and minimise my dependence on niche services.

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

#87

Post by overfeed »

inetknght wrote: post #81
overfeed wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism. First, if it's open source, then the contributions are still there for everyone to use. Second, if the license allows it, then the license allows it. Now, if the contributions were made with a contribution license to prevent it, you've got a solid argument. Otherwise you're appl…

> Second, if the license allows it, then the license allows it.

I'm not arguing the legality. One can be a jerk while complying with the letter of the license.

I stopped signing CLAs, and I feel bad for those suckered into signing CLAs - based on a deliberate lie that they are joining a "community" - when the rug pull is inevitably attempted. I hate that "open source as a growth hack" have metastisized onto rug pull long cons.

> Otherwise you're applying your own morals in a situation where they're irrelevant.

Sharing my opinion on an HN thread about an open source rug-pull is extremely relevant.

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

#88

Post by varispeed »

inglor wrote: post #32

First minio and then localstack, as an open source maintainer I find that abandoning their community is bad faith. I totally get wanting to monetize but removing the free product entirely feels like such a betrayel. Luckily, I've been vibing with Devin since this started having it build a cleanbox emulator on top of real s3 tuned for my specific use case. It's a lot less general but it's much faster and easy to add t…

> I totally get wanting to monetize

Yup, unfortunately people need to eat.

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

#89

Post by drzaiusx11 »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #82
drzaiusx11 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have been using a modified version of this for 8 years. I didn’t write it https://github.com/1Strategy/fargate-cloudformation-example/... It’s never taken 30 minutes to pass in a new parameter value for the Docker container. Also as far as rollbacks just use —disable-rollbacks. The only time I’ve had CFT get stuck is using custom resources when I didn’t have proper error handling and I didn’t send the failure signa…

Failed deployments without rollbacks still leave you in a unusable state and manual rollbacks of a failed service deployment can take as long to cleanup as the failed rollback you just disabled especially when dealing with persistent resources. That linked fargate stack is fairly bare bones in comparison to what we run in ECS and we maintain our own AMIs that are built nightly for security updates and ECR resources from docker build pipelines which need to go together in a real AWS environment to have any hope of actually working. A failure in one has cascading effects on others and cleanup is a pain. Passing a new parameter isn't a real exercise and we need a new docker build with every code change. Glad you have a minimalist setup and can get by with what? 10m deployments end to end? Sadly that's not the world I live in...

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

#90

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

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…

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "unethical".
Post reply on HN