851–860 of 969 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, they are are the good guys? At least if you believe in open source, not the fake stuff that Elastic is peddling.
AWS is ruining one of the few working business models we had to support Open Source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really get how people get this twisted. ES and other companies have a business that sells a managed version of their product. This is how they sustain developers to continue working on Elastic Search. This model has worked for companies long before cloud providers were a thing. What AWS and others basically did is create identical services, keep all the profits, and exploit gaps in Open Source licensing to th…
I don't really want to get into the moral rabbit-hole of who's right and wrong as that's clearly super controversial and subjective. But I did want to add my personal anecdote to serve as a canary-in-the-mine on what effect the status quo could perceivably have on the proliferation of open source software over the long term: I think we can all agree on the basic premise that having more open source software is a good…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon has not been contributing back to the open source projects when they offer a service based on it. E.g. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/big-data/performance-updates-to... Amazon EMR release 5.24.0 includes several optimizations in Spark that improve query performance. Why have these optimizations not been contributed back to the community?
Because they don't want to, or see no value in doing so. I've been downvoted to oblivion just by stating that contributions to popular OSS projects, especially those initiated,or heavily used by large tech companies,are nothing more than just free labour. Amazon's business is commodity: they made books,one of the most precious things we,as a civilization could create,a commodity. The storage space, computing, even ML…
I don't see that happening anytime soon. There is still a market for hobbyist and boostrapped businesses who can't afford the insane prices offered AWS, Azure, GCP & Co. Storage, Computing and Bandwidth on these platform is inflated for the "enterprise and over-funded-startups" market.
Hetzner, Ionos, Scaleway and OVH are still order of magnitude below AWS in terms of prices. And the quality difference is in no way justifying the price difference. (Especially with Hetzer and Scaleway which are almost on par with cloud platforms)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really get how people get this twisted. ES and other companies have a business that sells a managed version of their product. This is how they sustain developers to continue working on Elastic Search. This model has worked for companies long before cloud providers were a thing. What AWS and others basically did is create identical services, keep all the profits, and exploit gaps in Open Source licensing to th…
> AWS knows that if they take too much of ES' market that they won't survive. If they don't survive it will just be a matter of time before ES is dropped by Amazon and totally unsupported. Or Amazon (or a third party) may take over maintenance of ES if it's worth it to them. That's the whole point of open source. > You can frame this question in terms of ethics, you can frame it in terms of licensing naivety, you can…
Which OT1H is a valid reason not to go all "spirit" and "ideology" in business; OTOH, if what you're all about is spirit and ideology, it's a valid reason to stop thinking what you're doing is "Open Source" and go back to the original "Free Software" terminology.
As I think someone else mentioned already in this discussion, the term "FOSS" does more harm than good by conflating these different things, and should be avoided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is the correct take. AWS and Elastic are both acting out of self interest with varying levels of gains for the customer in each.
I'm about to make a really petty and possibly off topic comment, so sorry for this -- "this is the correct take" is like my least-favorite Twitter-ism of them all. it's so ridiculously authoritative and final. Like, "Whoa, okay, everyone stop the discussion. @SandwichGuy87 has identified the correct take. Thanks for bringing us to reality, @SandwichGuy87."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are Google and OpenBSD paying for their OpenSSL forks? Google, Apple, and Microsoft paying for WebKit?
>OpenBSD paying for their OpenSSL forks Do you know that OpenBSD initially MADE OpenSSL? But also LibreSSL (the fork of OpenSSL) OpenBGPD OpenOSPFD OpenNTPD OpenSMTPD OpenSSH
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS PrivateLink is just one option. AWS also offers free VPC peering too, but PrivateLink works better.
VPC peering is not free.
> If the VPCs in the VPC peering connection are within the same region, the charges for transferring data within the VPC peering connection are the same as the charges for transferring data across Availability Zones. If the VPCs are in different regions, inter-region data transfer costs apply.
There is no additional cost
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Amazon can easily fund developers, they just didn't because they didn't have to. Looking at the various projects at https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/ , the most prominent ones seem to only have a handful of somewhat active developers, almost two years after launch. If AWS hires a lot of people to work full time on their ASL2-licensed Elasticsearch and Kibana forks, then ... that's not necessarily _ju…
Apache 2 license doesn’t allow you to relicense. So absorbing changes from AWS’ fork won’t be clear or easy as many in this thread suggest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Generally a VM external pricing. Its tricky to setup Privatelink with a service provider. For example Elastic cloud will have its own kubernetes setup. It could be behind a HW loadbalancer - how do you set up Privatelink there ? Super tricky and not applicable in all circumstances. GCP and AWS must move towards sane traffic pricing (or risk anti-monopoly lawsuits). The licensing changes are just a first step. P.S. :…
You basically have to hookup Cloud Provider A through a middle layer to Cloud Provider B (e.g., connect via Equinix or Megaport). It’s not drastically different than a hybrid setup, except you don’t control the premises on either side.
While getting you the right link to our Partner Interconnect docs, it turns out we have a nice solution guide writing up the various options [1].
The costs boil down to some non-trivial fixed price each month to cover the 1/10/100+ Gbps connection on each side, plus whatever transfer fees each provider charges for egress over that method. At large enough volumes, providers of all sorts usually have equivalent fixed prices. Getting multiple redundant lines, or doing VPN encryption, obviously costs more and is more work than “just a pipe”.
Even at list prices though, this gets you closer to $.02/GB each way in Europe or North America. At high volume in the same metro area (like Northern Virginia), you can easily agree to much lower rates on either side.
[1] https://cloud.google.com/solutions/patterns-for-connecting-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elastic wants to get the benefits of permissive licenses without the drawbacks. Having a permissive license is a massive asset for getting people to adopt your software, but it means you will have no control over what they do with it. They want the goodwill and other benefits of a permissive license without loss of control that these licenses bring.
I have to disagree, I see no reason to think that Elasticsearch is seeking to avoid "the drawbacks" of a permissive license. I believe the project has been using a permissive license since it's first release in 2010. What they are objecting to is having their project co-opted by Amazon, one of the largest and wealthiest technology companies in the world. Elasticsearch and Amazon have been battling this out for a coup…