[HN Gopher] OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana ___________________________________________________________________ OpenSearch: AWS fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana Author : ke4qqq Score : 477 points Date : 2021-04-12 15:54 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (aws.amazon.com) (TXT) w3m dump (aws.amazon.com) | ignoramous wrote: | OpenSearch was once was an initiative founded at A9, Amazon | subsidiary, to create a personalized, cross-service, search | engine: https://archive.is/PCKWq | | OpenSearch is from an era when Amazon and Google were covertly | competitive. Google didn't get anywhere with Froogle and | AppEngine; whilst Alexa and A9 didn't move any mountains. | | Code: https://github.com/dewitt/opensearch | galaxyLogic wrote: | I think this thread is much about shared source licenses like | SSPL vs. "orthodox" open source licenses like GPL. | | Based on the link below it seems to me the difference is that | SSPL etc. have a clause which prevents me from making money by | selling the use of the licensed software over the network for | instance. | | GPL puts some rather strict rules on users of copyleft software, | mainly that you MUST distribute your modifications with the same | license. | | What I don't quite get is why adding a rule that says "if you | make this software usable over the network you must make it | usable for free" would be considered categorically less ethical | than GPL. | | GPL says you must give out your modifications for free. SSPL says | you must also give out the rights to use that software for free | as well. | | Isn't SSPL more ethical in the sense that it requires you to give | out more for free? | | https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/29/the-crusade-against-open-s... | znpy wrote: | RIP Elastic | jimmy2020 wrote: | Is there any good that done by Amazon to support OSS? Like ever. | They started with cloning MongoDB and now Elastic with actually | zero contribution to the community regardless of their insane | profits. This is a clear single. Amazon can always clone and | redistribute any open source software then lock it in for AWS. If | we've started to witness declining in OSS, well at least we know | now who started the wave. | benmller313 wrote: | This seems like a much more positive response than the one they | took with MongoDB. I agree, Amazon hasn't done much, but maybe | this could be a start? | jimmy2020 wrote: | The start maybe done by open source some technology they use | that can profit and help other startups. Maybe open source | their own version of "React". That will be a good start. | oscargrouch wrote: | Maybe a dual-company like Mozilla would at least make it more | clear that the big guy that are just taking advantage of the | free lunch is doing more harm than good? | | Elastic should have a for-profit and a non-profit company | taking donations that would actually control the open source | code and hiring the core part of team working on it. | | I mean, we know how badly Amazon is behaving here, but at least | they should have a option where they could realistically | invest. | | Asking for a company to invest in a competitor that can grow | and eat their lunch with the money being invested by them is | not realistic. Even because the company investing the money | would want to know if that money is actually being invested | back in the open source software and not used by a competing | company. | | If, giving this choice, they didn't invest back in the | foundation, it would be much more clear that they are doing it | in bad faith. | unethical_ban wrote: | You're asserting that they have forked OSS and then not | provided back the source code for their own improvements. | | I guess we can check their github repos to see if that's the | case. | jimmy2020 wrote: | As far as I know DocumentDB is closed source. Btw: I can name | zero OSS projects from Amazon and this is not the same for | Microsoft (VScode, TS) and FB (React, Jest). | yandie wrote: | Firecracker is a famous one that I can think of. | invertedreversi wrote: | Fork of Google crosvm | jimmy2020 wrote: | there's always a fork. | Twirrim wrote: | Firecracker, s2n, chalice, jsii. | | On top of that AWS has done a lot of contributions | upstream, particularly around the linux kernel, https://git | .kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin..., | (particularly the virtualisation stacks involved), some | around OpenJDK at what looks like an increasing pace, and | the like. | | To be clear: not an AWS employee. | DetroitThrow wrote: | I know several employees contributing to the Linux kernel, | and I know they're hiring more Rust contributors. You're | right though, I think Amazon lags compared to MSFT, FB, and | G. Even Netflix or IBM/RedHat, for that matter. | hintymad wrote: | Do people assume that a company as large as AWS would | automatically have a lot to contribute to the OSS? Maybe most | of Amazon teams have not much to open source yet. Contributing | to OSS is a bottom-up effort. An engineer needs to be motivated | to generalize her project, to peel the code from Amazon's vast | internal infrastructure, and to go through an approval process | to open source her project. Given that many teams have razor- | sharp focus on delivering features, for good or for bad, I was | wondering how many engineers are really motivated enough to | open source something internal. | that_guy_iain wrote: | I don't think it's a bottom up process. I feel often it's a | top down process. Most companies with lots open source | activity normally have management that have decided that is | something they want to encourage and then it comes down to | people making their code open sourcable. | jimmy2020 wrote: | It is both a top down process and the culture of the | company itself. In the real world, we know how big tech | open-sourced some of the most efficient technologies that | empowered hundreds, if not millions, of startups. | dariusj18 wrote: | https://aws.amazon.com/opensource/ | jimmy2020 wrote: | Yes exactly, you have actually to google it maybe you'll be | able to find a useful link that makes Amazon looks good. | mrnaught wrote: | Why is this comment downvoted? | dariusj18 wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean. | marricks wrote: | Amazon will of course have a PR statement about how it | cares about open source. It's not like Apple is known for | it's commitment to open source but it has a similar page: | https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ | rafaelturk wrote: | TLDR: It's all Apache 2.0. | williesleg wrote: | Oh this will not end well. | phd514 wrote: | From the announcement: "You should consider the initial code to | be at an alpha stage -- it is not complete, not thoroughly | tested, and not suitable for production use. We are planning to | release a beta in the next few weeks, and expect it to stabilize | and be ready for production by early summer (mid-2021)." | | Given that Amazon announced the fork in January and they don't | expect it to be production-ready until summer, I'm guessing | they've underestimated the amount of work required to package and | distribute a product as complex as Elasticsearch. Given that, I | doubt they will be well-equipped to keep pace with new feature | development. | acdha wrote: | I would question the assumption that this is "not suitable for | production use" means "everything is broken and we're way | behind" rather than, say, "we are being extremely conservative | because our customers will expect support as soon as we say | it's production ready and we need to test every upgrade | scenario for our large number of existing customers". The AWS- | managed ElasticSearch seems to be pretty popular and I would | expect them to be as conservative about new offerings as they | are with, say, RDS. | z77dj3kl wrote: | The fork announcement was announced as a response to the | Elastic stuff. I don't think they made any predictions about | when it'd be ready in that blog post, so I'm not sure why they | would've underestimated anything? | lornajane wrote: | I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. Now that the fork is | publicly available, others can contribute to get it ready, | which wasn't possible until now. | phd514 wrote: | Yes, others can contribute, but significant feature | development on large-scale OSS projects tends to be driven by | developers paid to work on the project full-time and | coordinated by an organized steering committee with clear | governance (or company if the product is owned by a single | company). I don't see any of that in place for OpenSearch and | getting that all started up is not at all a trivial endeavor. | busterarm wrote: | Given how poorly of a job Elastic themselves did with keeping | the full ecosystem of tools working in lockstep for YEARS, I'm | sure Amazon will do fine. | | I remember all through Elasticsearch 5 where none of their | packaged Kibana dashboards flippin' worked. | colechristensen wrote: | I would assume they're doing more than just packaging. | | A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that | the balances are correct | fastball wrote: | 6 months from start to prod is... not bad at all? You must be a | wizard programmer if that is your typical turnaround time. | | I don't remember AWS saying something like "it will be ready in | weeks" in Jan... | [deleted] | retzkek wrote: | > they've underestimated the amount of work required to package | and distribute a product as complex as Elasticsearch | | The bulk of the work thus far has been to strip out the non-OSS | components ("X-pack") and the many references to it, nothing to | do with packaging, distributing, or even maintaining and | developing features. | | https://discuss.opendistrocommunity.dev/t/preparing-opensear... | zo1 wrote: | I for one will be happy when those are taken out. So many | headaches trying to get bloated Kibana to start as a docker | container before realizing that some random x-pack-disable | flag needs to be set for it to start without a random error. | pmarreck wrote: | What is the sell for ES over something like the fulltext search | built into Postgres, considering that the cost of adding another | dependency is not insignificant? | Pirate-of-SV wrote: | It's nice that they announce it and that there's some sort of | future effort promised. From my perspective we might not upgrade | the elastic-stack (with current Elastic projects) too far to not | bacome accidentally incompatible in case we want to make a | switch. | [deleted] | fakedang wrote: | On a tangential note, how is Meilisearch compared to | Elasticsearch? | binarymax wrote: | Meilisearch is a new niche engine for instant-search | experiences, and is far less flexible and less mature than | Elasticsearch | parhamn wrote: | > and we don't ask for a contributor license agreement (CLA) | | Makes me wonder what these are for (copyright transfer) and why | they decided it's not needed. It also makes me wonder if this | sort of thing has ever been taken/tested in court or if it's | paranoid friction with little value add. | iib wrote: | Eric S. Raymond is against them, but also argues that they are | harmful--as opposed to just useless--because if they ever got | to court, a jurist would look at the practices of the community | to decide whether such a thing is common enough that they | should be required. [1] | | I know GNU does it (at least for Emacs) under the reason that | the FSF can go after any GPL violation only if it is the clear | copyright holder, but no such case exists, to my knowledge. | | [1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8287 | resoluteteeth wrote: | > Makes me wonder what these are for (copyright transfer) and | why they decided it's not needed. It also makes me wonder if | this sort of thing has ever been taken/tested in court or if | it's paranoid friction with little value add. | | Some companies/projects might use them purely to avoid possible | future legal headaches (I think GNU does this), and I'm not | sure to what degree that has actually been tested, but they can | also allow re-licensing under a different license which is more | clear cut and I think that's more the issue here | | Amazon is trying to say that they'll never relicense the code, | so they have no need to take ownership over contributions. | Boulth6 wrote: | Indeed that is likely but I wonder why didn't they at least | require a Developer's Cerificate of Origin [0] that | kernel.org uses. This is really lightweight (just append one | line to git commit message) and supposedly provides a minimum | legal base for the change. IANAL. | | [0]: https://blog.chef.io/introducing-developer-certificate- | of-or... | conroy wrote: | I just opened a pull request to fix a few typos in the | README. They are requiring a Developer's Certificate of | Origin. | bombcar wrote: | A copyright transfer would easily smell to people "Amazon is | going to change the license at some point in the future to duck | us over Elasticsearch-style". They're trying to avoid that | smell. | denysvitali wrote: | Okay... and what's the difference here from Open Distro for | ElasticSearch? I guess it's just a rebranding, isn't it? | bbest123 wrote: | Open Distro for ElasticSearch was not a fork rather an Apache | 2.0-licensed distribution of Elasticsearch enhanced with | enterprise security, alerting, SQL etc... OpenSearch is a | community-driven, open source search and analytics suite | derived from Apache 2.0 licensed Elasticsearch 7.10.2 & Kibana | 7.10.2. | hello_moto wrote: | OpenDistro for ES is the surrounding tools for ES => plugins, | index-state-management, basically a suite clone of ES | Enterprise offerings (X-pack) because AWS can't ship AWS ES | with X-Pack. | | OpenSearch is the ES (core) itself. | | If I'm not mistaken. | bmcahren wrote: | I feel Amazon took the feedback from the DocumentDB/MongoDB | fiasco to heart and made positive change in their approach. | | DocumentDB is a closed source proprietary database created by | Amazon to emulate the MongoDB API. Think Google's Dalvik runtime | vs Sun/Oracle's JVM. | | This time around we have an open source fork of ES with big | backers all contributing and very permissive licensing. | | In both cases, Amazon gets to implement AWS-specific upgrades to | management to depend heavily on EBS replication rather than | application-layer replication. Would it be nice to have that | secret sauce that makes Aurora/DocumentDB so nice to use compared | to self-hosting or RDS? Of course. Do we have to have it to | consider using or contributing to the open source software? No. | busterarm wrote: | On the other hand, MongoDB is already sort of obsolete and | trending towards death by the time that all ended up happening | while ElasticSearch is hot and "new". | rabbidruster wrote: | Where do you get the impression MongoDB is trending towards | death? Seems to be growing by some metrics; the stock price | has more than doubled in the last year. Not a fan myself, but | still seems a long way from death to me and seem to be doing | something right in enterprise market. | xvilka wrote: | They also could sponsor Elasticsearch alternatives in Rust - | Sonic[1] and Toshi[2]. Even more, integration[3] with Vector. | | [1] https://github.com/valeriansaliou/sonic | | [2] https://github.com/toshi-search/Toshi | | [3] https://github.com/timberio/vector/issues/988 | andreygrehov wrote: | Does that mean ElasticSearch documentation won't be relevant | soon? | bombcar wrote: | ElasticSearch will need to relatively quickly come out with a | feature the OpenSearch doesn't replicate or people will just | use the minimum that both support (see MySQL vs MariaDB). | shankspeaks wrote: | Imagine if they went after Mongo next? | | Atlas is a virtual monopoly for Mongo solely due to SSPL, and it | has created a ridiculously overpriced ecosystem for hosted and | managed services, and tooling around it. | | Parking the technical merits to one side, considering the sheer | number of devs and early-stage products that are built on Mongo, | I'd love for someone to go after them next. | calmoo wrote: | Amazon already have DocumentDB which clones the Mongo API. I | don't think its forked though, they just use a barely mongo | compatible wrapper around their own db engine. | vio2 wrote: | It's not nearly as compatible as you might think. | Interestingly enough, MongoDB's CTO managed RDS at AWS. | bgorman wrote: | This already exists | | https://aws.amazon.com/documentdb/ | Graphguy wrote: | Kinda blocked on the compatibility front after the 4.0 API | though, eh? | bmcahren wrote: | Not if the recent Oracle vs Google supreme court ruling is | to be acknowledged. | | DocumentDB is to MongoDB 4.0+ as Dalvik runtime was to JVM. | | Here is their 4.0 compatibility update: https://docs.aws.am | azon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... | Graphguy wrote: | Time will tell...MongoDB 4.2 APIs are under SSPL | | "Amazon DocumentDB implements the Apache 2.0 open source | MongoDB 3.6 and 4.0 APIs by emulating the responses that | a MongoDB client expects from a MongoDB server, allowing | you to use your existing MongoDB drivers and tools with | Amazon DocumentDB." | | https://aws.amazon.com/documentdb/ | | IANAL | sdesol wrote: | Will be interesting to see the resources that AWS will throw at | this. You can get a sense of the resource that elastic.co is | throwing at elasticsearch at | | https://public-001.gitsense.com/insights/github/repos?r=gith... | | I'm currently indexing the fork, so in about an hour or two, I'll | provide the insights for the fork as well. | sdesol wrote: | I can't edit the comment anymore, but you can find the fork at | https://public-001.gitsense.com/insights/github/repos?r=gith... | binarymax wrote: | Elastic spends so much time and effort on making sure that | their search is performant (and they are not shy about | deprecating and removing features that are slow). I think this | is where Elastic will continue to shine. It's one thing to add | features, it's another to make it so they work well and make | sure the integrating product team doesn't shoot themselves in | the foot. | DetroitThrow wrote: | I agree, I trust there will be value for some in openSearch | not using SSPL and value for others in Elastic's | performant/scaleable tendencies. | sdesol wrote: | What may hurt them though, is the number of customers that | currently feel things are currently "good enough". I don't | know what their sales engagement looks like, so I'm not sure | if this will really hurt them or not. | binarymax wrote: | Perhaps! My money is on Elastic including an approximate | nearest neighbor search in 8.0 which uses the new HNSW | feature in Lucene 9, which is going to be hard to do in a | distributed capacity and will be a significant feature if | they can pull it off. | | PS - I've never seen gitsense before and it's really cool. | I especially like the focus quadrant! | sdesol wrote: | Since search is your domain expertise, I'll take your | word for it :-) | | As for GitSense, checkout the impact section and sort | contributors by "First Commit". With this, you'll get a | very good idea of the developer's expertise level. | jillesvangurp wrote: | I scrolled back through the commits. It looks like they've been | removing traces of x-pack, Elastic branding, licensing checks, | etc. since the beginning of March. So far it looks like one | person is doing the bulk of all that work. | | If there are new features, I haven't seen any. The real | question is do they have a team for new feature work that they | are putting together or is this just a fork that is doomed to | fall behind as Elastic's huge team continues to develop their | code base fixing bugs that will never get fixed on the Amazon | fork, adding features that will never get fixed, eventually | releasing the 8.0 release that has been in the works for two | years, etc. | | I don't see any evidence that they have that team so far. | They're paying a few people to go through the moves of forking | but I don't really see a grand vision beyond that so far. | sdesol wrote: | I really need to add a compare feature to my tool as it would | make analysis a lot easier. Having said that, there is no | denying there is a huge difference in work being done in both | projects over the past 30 days. | | Amazon does have 16 open pull requests though, with about 7 | having 20 or more file changes, but I didn't dig into them to | understand their significance. Maybe it's another feature | I'll need to work on. | | If you look at the one year window for elasticsearch | | https://public-001.gitsense.com/insights/github/repos?q=wind. | .. | | it's churn and activity has been extremely consistent and I'm | not sure if this is an investment Amazon can and/or is | willing to make. | | However, knowing enterprise, I'm not sure if this will make a | huge difference as those making the decisions might not | really care and they'll just accept whatever Amazon tells | them. | shawnz wrote: | They have done extensive work in the Open Distro modules | which I assume they will carry over. See: | https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/ | chatman wrote: | If this project were to be governed by Apache Software | Foundation, I'd have associated more credibility to this effort. | bambam24 wrote: | This is wonderful | thayne wrote: | I'm glad they changed the name. Although it's probably too much | to ask that the AWS service be renamed to OpenSearch Service as | well. | ElijahLynn wrote: | > We plan to rename our existing Amazon Elasticsearch Service | to Amazon OpenSearch Service. | thayne wrote: | Oh, I missed that :) | mgr86 wrote: | Naive aside, but why would I want to use ElasticSearch or | OpenSearch over Solr? Are ES and Solr not both based on Lucene? | _tom_ wrote: | Elasticsearch has done a good job of focusing on the log | analytics space, and Kibana is a great tool. | | I'd probably use ES for any log analytics and Solr for things | like website and ecommerce search. | | Of course, you could do both with either. | seabrookmx wrote: | ElasticSearch seems to have more mindshare. It can be easier to | find resources online to help solve your problems.. though ES | moves through versions fast (and they do break backwards | compatibility on major version bumps) so sometimes this can | still be an issue. | | Other benefit is that you don't have to rely on Zookeeper if | you're horizontally scaling. | | I don't have a ton of experience with Solr but they seem pretty | comparable. | binarymax wrote: | Great blog post on this subject: | https://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2019/02/28/stop-worry... | mdaniel wrote: | The real vendor lock-in for ES (and now AWS OS) is the REST | query API; if Solr implemented ES's API, I bet $1 a lot more | people would have moved or at least considered moving over | | IIRC Solr also has some weird stuff about schemaless indices, | whereas ES took the very Mongo-y approach of "yeah, just throw | content at the index, don't worry about it" but then separately | the approach of "I am angry with your new conflicting field in | that document" and throws an exception; so you don't have to | worry about the schema right up until you do have to worry | about it | elric wrote: | In all three cases, Lucene is used as a "low level" (Java) API | which provides search capabilities. OS, ES and Solr turn Lucene | into a server, with features like horizontal scaling (ES | Cluster, Solr Cloud). The major differences are in how well | that all works, how easy it is to administer, how much caching | and optimization is done on top of Lucene, etc. | | I haven't extensively used ES, but I've used Solr a lot (and | contributed to), and I can say that it's a mess. The community | is not one of the better ones I've seen. Bugs and stability | issues are often ignored. Patches sit around gathering dust. | There are some gems and very clever people in the community, of | course, but it seems like there are too few of them to cope | with the large beast that Solr has become. If I were starting a | new project in the search space, Solr would not make my | shortlist. | busterarm wrote: | I've used both and cannot think of a reason why I would use | Solr again, besides licensing. | vervas wrote: | Not familiar with Solr but I believe the analogy to linux would | be choosing the preferred distro while they all use the same | kernel. There are a bunch of long comparison lists if you | search for it. | binarymax wrote: | Hey All, if you're interested in getting a good understanding of | this vs Elasticsearch, we invited the team to give a Haystack | LIVE talk where they outlined the details and goals of the | project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_6U1luNScg | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | I have mixed feelings about this server side license stuff that | mongo db started. Imagine where the internet would be today if | the creators of apache and mysql had tried to prevent shared | hosting providers in the early days of the web from using their | software | asien wrote: | > Imagine where the internet would be today if the creators of | apache and mysql had tried to prevent shared hosting | | PHP + MySQL was the foundation of the Internet not so long ago | , Wordpress is stil the backbone of lots of platform. | | With SS License definitely this would not have been possible. | joking wrote: | Imagine where elastic would be, as the whole success of elastic | is based on a apache licensed project (lucene). | madeofpalk wrote: | In the same place as it would require elastic's changes to | Lucerne to be made open source also? | catern wrote: | The server side license stuff doesn't prevent shared hosting | providers from using software. It just requires hosting | providers to open source their infrastructure. | | I think the internet would be even better today, if shared | hosting providers had been sharing infrastructure technology | since 25 years ago. | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | I think that's missing the forest for the trees. The license | is designed to prevent hosting providers from selling the | software as a service to their customers. The requirement to | open source their entire infrastructure and operations is | just a means to do that. | antpls wrote: | Technically it doesn't just prevent from selling SaaS. It | prevents from selling SaaS without having the consent of | the open source project first, which means negotiating a | deal. | brainless wrote: | The time when Apache or MySQL started out was very different. | Imagine where the internet would be if cloud computing itself | didn't take off. | | Do you remember a time when there were hundreds of hosting | providers? Do you remember WebHostingTalk where admins would go | to check hosting offers from suppliers around the world? | | The monopolies finished that era. So I don't think that | software companies trying to adapt now can be seen through the | lens of what was 15 years ago. | paxys wrote: | There are more hosting providers today than in the era you | are talking about. AWS has a "monopoly" simply because large | companies are using it, and back in the day those companies | would have run their own datacenters not used a shared PHP | host. For a personal site or startup you have a thousand | other options. | that_guy_iain wrote: | I wouldn't say AWS has a monopoly. There are tons of | providers ranging from Digital Ocean to Google Cloud. AWS | is just the largest because they've been around the | longest. They're so deeply entrenched in Cloud that most | people automatically think of them. I think things such as | Netflix talking about their engineering and how they use | AWS was a major boost at the start. Now a days people are | literally studying to become AWS certified. We even have a | AWS specialised working at my company. AWS and other cloud | providers are also very smart in locking in start ups by | offering them thousands upon thousands of free credit. | Build your MVP on there and then end up vendor locked in | but think it's a good thing. | | I heard a tidbit that I don't know if it's true or not but | I would like to think it is. AWS has become so expensive | for some companies that they're starting to migrate back to | their own datacentres. | darkwater wrote: | I'm not even that sure this is true in absolute numbers, | but I'm pretty sure it is not in relative figures. There | are waaaay more customer/businesses on the Internet today | than there were 15 years ago and not that many providers | more. | AtNightWeCode wrote: | I have been perfectly happy with ES cloud services. Is this done | by honest intentions from AWS or is it simply based on the fact | that ES are making a lot of money of the cloud services? | deknos wrote: | i bet this will only really work in AWS. :D | [deleted] | TechBro8615 wrote: | It's hard for me to know whether to feel bad for ES in this case. | Did they bring it on themselves? Is Amazon too big and a bully? | | From my perspective, Amazon has made most of its profit price | gouging consumers on bandwidth after vendor locking them into | their ecosystem, where they bootstrap new services by wrapping | open source software with some provisioning scripts, management | dashboards and cookie-cutter API / console templates. Indeed, | most of this is templated -- AFAIU, for example, each AWS service | autogenerates its Boto bindings and parts of its console frontend | via code generators. Amazon has really mastered the factory | process of churning out new services, and when they find a | popular one, they can invest more resources into developing it | than the original team ever could. | | And therein lies the rub. If Amazon is improving the software in | a way that the original team couldn't, it's hard to say that the | community isn't benefiting. I think what strikes me the wrong way | is that Amazon is not doing it for any altruistic reason. In | fact, Amazon contributes very little to open source in general, | considering how much they take from it. Compare them to Facebook | (React, etc) or Google (tons of dev tools) or Microsoft (VSC, | TypeScript). What does Amazon have? Firecracker, kind of? And now | a fork of ES because that's the only way they could continue | making money off it without violating the license a small startup | put in place to stop them? | | Well, good for Amazon, I suppose, but I find myself instinctively | disliking them for this. I'm not sure what the solution is. | Hopefully technologies like Kubernetes and Terraform will | encourage big customers to become at least cloud-agnostic, if not | cloud-independent. At the very least it would be great if Amazon | / Google / Microsoft stopped gouging bandwidth at such absurd | margins. Or not. Maybe it will be their downfall as startups | differentiate along those lines. That would be ironic, coming | from the originators of "your margin is my opportunity." | | Personally I'm doing my part by not building anything with vendor | lock-in. It's great to be able to deploy to any cloud, if you | value either robustness or flexibility. | raiflip wrote: | It seems reductionist to say Amazon primarily wraps around open | source. What about EC2? S3? Glue? DynamoDB? Many of the | services that provide the most value are services Amazon has | built out. | sofixa wrote: | Om top of these, many of the core services that AWS | themselves rely on, like SQS, SNS, Kinesis, Lambda, | Cloudfront, ECS, Fargate, Elastic Beanstalk are mostly | homemade | z77dj3kl wrote: | My favorite "conspiracy theory" is that AWS intentionally | creates stupidly verbose and numerous headers in all of their | APIs just to up the bandwidth usage a few bytes per request at | a time. | cortesoft wrote: | You don't pay for the bandwidth of API calls to AWS | [deleted] | [deleted] | jrochkind1 wrote: | What ES wants of course is for Amazon to give them a cut of | revenue from hosting ES. | | We already know Amazon isn't interested in doing that (either | at all, or at whatever price ES wanted, we don't know that). | | They had no legal requirement to when ES was open source. So ES | changed the licensing to no longer be open source. | | So, Amazon could... a) decide to give ES a cut after all, b) | decide to stop hosting ES, or c) fork the last open source | version. | | I don't think anyone is surprised they chose c? Presumably ES | isn't either? Maybe ES thinks this will be good for them/bad | for Amazon anyway, because they are hoping potential customers | will abandon the Amazon fork and stay on the original ES fork? | | Not sure why they'd be confident in that exactly. Maybe they | know what they're doing. | | As users/customers, we would rather have a choice of hosted | vendors/platforms, and that it remain un-forked (so we can | use/write software compatible with either vendor/platform). | Competition is good for us as users/customers, that's in fact | one of the reasons we choose open source, so no one vendor can | set the hosting price all on their own without competition. We | want to be able to choose among competitors for hosting, based | on price, customer service, performance, uptime, whatever. | | But ES didn't want that, they didn't want hosting competition | to exist -- at least not without permission and agreed upon cut | for them -- because, I guess, hosting was how they planned to | make money as a company to fund development as well as profits | for investors etc. So they changed their license to no longer | allow it. So of the possible outcomes remaining... this one | seems as good as any for the user/customer, I guess? | | So, when you say "I'm doing my part by not building anything | with vendor lock-in" -- I'm not sure which course you are | suggesting. In fact, between ElasticSearch and new OpenSearch | fork.. it's _OpenSearch_ that is the one without vendor lock- | in, right? OpenSearch is Apache licensed, and can be hosted by | any vendor and still forked by anyone . It 's ElasticSearch | that has a license limiting what vendors can host it (without | permission of ES), it's the one with vendor lock-in, right? So | not building anything with vendor lock-in means... ? | galaxyLogic wrote: | Good interesting points. Now Amazon will be the good guy | because they will run open-source version, whereas | ElasticSearch is not, if I understand you correctly. | | No single capitalist wants competitive markets. They want | monopoly, for themselves. It is only when they don't have the | monopoly or an easy way to get it that they cry for | competitive markets. And that is good of course. | dieters wrote: | There are also ways out of vendor lock-in. Alternator comes to | mind as a way of migrating DynamoDB workloads out to other | cloud vendors or your own servers: | https://docs.scylladb.com/using-scylla/alternator/ | prepend wrote: | > In fact, Amazon contributes very little to open source in | general, considering how much they take from it | | I don't think this is a fact. Amazon seems to contribute pretty | significantly according to the pages [0,1] they put out that | describes their contributions. Not to mention their membership | in OSS foundations like Linux Foundation. [2] | | You have the caveat about in relation to benefit they gain, but | that's pretty hard to measure. And I think isn't really a good | measure. | | I'd like to learn more about why you make such an absolute | claim and maybe you have some better measure. | | I remember back in the 90s when big orgs (Microsoft, IBM) | didn't contribute to open source and can't even think of any | big orgs today that don't contribute to open source. Even | Oracle has big open source projects. | | [0] https://amzn.github.io/ [1] | https://aws.amazon.com/opensource/ [2] | https://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/join/members/ | aledalgrande wrote: | Yeah and also what about projects like Firecracker? | | https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker/ | TechBro8615 wrote: | The absolute claim, aside from being at home in a rant on HN, | comes from a cursory glance at https://github.com/amzn, | weighted by contributors and popularity, and compared to | companies of similar size. Google, Microsoft and Facebook all | build and maintain multiple open source projects that are | hugely popular with people who use them outside of the | company sandboxes. For example, people benefit from React | without Facebook gaining much directly. ( _Facebook_! If | Facebook has any redeeming qualities, it 's their open source | contributions to the frontend ecosystem, although I promise | you I could ascribe malicious intent to those as well...) | Contrast that with Amazon. On their GitHub page, I see a few | obscure projects amongst a bulbous array of AWS SDKs. | | To the sibling comment that asked about Firecracker -- I | think Firecracker is awesome, and I did mention that in my | original complaint. They even created it themselves! Well, a | team of amazing engineers in Romania did. I have no personal | insight into the matter, but it seems like they operate | relatively independently from the AWS profit machine. Good | for them too, it's incredible software. But I'm sure if they | were to tell the story of how they got buy-in at Amazon to | open source it, the same themes would come up -- how does | Amazon benefit from this? In the case of Firecracker, the | more people test it / harden it / run Doom on it, the more | value Amazon can provide on its serverless platform. So | again, unlikely to be purely altruistic intentions... but | that's not to say there's anything wrong with that. I just | find it all a bit distasteful in aggregate. | dblock wrote: | A better URL to look at is | https://github.com/enterprises/amazon. | whimsicalism wrote: | That is a 404, so not better. | ncann wrote: | When I think of Google I think of Go, Angular, protobuf, | Bazel, Dart, Flutter, Android, Chromium, Kubernetes, | Tensorflow, etc. | | When I think of MS I think of C#, TypeScript, VSCode, .NET | | When I think of Facebook I think of React, Flux, Jest, | PyTorch, GraphQL, Haxl | | When I think of Apple I think of Swift, WebKit | | When I think of Amazon...I can't really think of anything | galaxyLogic wrote: | I would add Kotlin to Google's credit. | | But I think it's important to note that these companies | don't contribute to open source out of any moral | obligation, do they? | | I think they do it to tie more developers and development | around their eco-systems and products. | | Maybe Amazon should get smart and start doing something | similar. Or maybe they don't need that. But in any case I | don't hold it morally against them that they don't. I | think a bigger issue is it seems they pay and have been | paying very little or no taxes. | | https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/amazon-had-to-pay- | federal-in... | reducesuffering wrote: | No I would not add Kotlin to Google's credit. All the | initial work and exponential adoption started with | JetBrains. Google only greenlit it as an official Android | dev language eventually (barring whatever OSS work | they're doing on it only now). | deanCommie wrote: | I really don't understand this argument. Why do you think | Facebook and Google have so many open source | contributions? Is it really out of the goodness of their | hearts? Or is it because that was part of their | DELIBERATE STRATEGY to attract talent and use OSS as part | of marketing outreach. | | Microsoft's core business is developer tooling. In the | 90's and early 2000's that could be closed-source and | proprietary. By the 2010s it was clear that the only way | to operate with the kind of tools they have is to be open | source, so they pivoted. But their goal is still | business. | | Google built Kubernetes as a platform play to compete | with AWS and Azure - brilliantly - by feeding engineer | fears about "lock-in", giving them a set of tools that | they could justify feeling "free", and then when the | engineers invariably said "this is too complicated to | build, maintain, and operate" they turned around and sold | a GCP managed kubernetes solution! After all, who better | to operate Kubernetes than the team that built it, | amirite? | | Android is the same play just competing with closed- | source iOS instead of AWS. | | Facebook built GraphQL for developers on THEIR Platform. | | Apple built Swift for developers on THEIR platform. | | Examples like this are just as cynical and capitalistic | profit-driven as AWS "open sourcing" an SDK for | interacting with AWS. | dimitrios1 wrote: | Facebook: Relay, Cassandra, React Native, RocksDB, | Presto, Reason, btrfs, osquery. | | Apple made significant contributions to LLVM and Clang | | Hell IBM has more open source contributions (many through | the Apache foundation and standards committees) than | Amazon, which is saying something. | cthalupa wrote: | >Cassandra | | This is an interesting one in the context of this | discussion. It likely does not exist as we know it | without Amazon's Dynamo paper. | amzn-throw wrote: | > Well, a team of amazing engineers in Romania did. I have | no personal insight into the matter, but it seems like they | operate relatively independently from the AWS profit | machine. | | Amazon and AWS is a massive multinational corporation with | development teams around the world. Including Romania, | where we had a dev center for a very long time: | http://romania.amazon.com/#/ | | There is no such thing as the AWS profit machine. All dev | teams around the world operate with similar levels of | autonomy and responsibility. It's just that some of them | are working on super internal systems, some on super | external, and some open source. Some make a ton of money, | and some don't make any, but are beneficial to the overall | developer experience/ecosystem, and so make sense. | the_duke wrote: | They didn't even create firecracker themselves. It's a fork | of Googles crossvm. | oblio wrote: | https://github.com/aws | | https://github.com/awslabs | cbushko wrote: | To me it looks like they mostly contribute to projects that | are SDKs to use AWS. | manigandham wrote: | People want to pay for services, not software and licenses. | They want turn-key solutions that are available via API and | GUI, instantly and on-demand. This is the fundamental reason | why AWS is so successful and the demand is constantly proven | with every new product launch. | | Elastic (and other vendors) complaining about this instead of | using it for their own success is a problem of their own | making. At least a few companies are finally learning. | ampdepolymerase wrote: | What's worse is the second order repercussions. Future open | core/open source SaaSes will go straight to something like the | Business Source License or the MongoDB license instead of | traditional libre licenses. Amazon has done an incredible | amount of damage to the open ecosystem. | randoramax wrote: | Good. So the VCs will go back to playing like in the old days | of shareware software licenses. It'll be good. | hintymad wrote: | It sounds trivial to "wrap open source software", but | surprisingly it is big value-add to thousands of companies. We | can't just look at successful companies like Netflix to | downplay the challenges of operating a service. Not every | company knows how to operate complex systems under manageable | cost. How many companies can really manage a Kafka cluster, let | alone scaling it, for instance? Indeed, even companies that | people deem powerful may screw up, if they don't get their | culture or process right. Take Uber for example, for god damn | five years, they still couldn't offer a service like EC2, let | alone supporting persistent volumes. They still couldn't make | their database provisioning on demand via an API. Their MySQL- | based NoSQL solution was still based on FriendFeed's | architecture and the APIs were hard to use. Yet they spent | millions building a k8s replacement, building a GPU database, | switching from mysql to postgres and back to mysql, etc and | etc. So, yes, cloud companies like AWS buildd mere control | planes to wrap open-source software, yet such seemingly mundane | offering does bring values to many customers. | cle wrote: | This is the most important point, IMO. Amazon's value add is | not the software itself, it's the operation of the software. | That includes a LOT of stuff, not just making sure it's | running. It's security modeling and patching, compliance, | DDOS protection, etc. Amazon's product is an army of ops | engineers working 24/7 to keep your stuff secure and online. | | With that in mind, their behavior here makes a lot more | sense, and comparing it with companies who have dramatically | different products, like Facebook and Google, takes a lot of | effort to understand the differences and what impact they | have. | harshaw wrote: | AWS just has engineers full stop. No specific ops | engineers. | stefan_ wrote: | You can rent a car but nobody would suggest the car | manufacturer be paid nothing for the privilege just cause | the rental company _cracked_ car maintenance and how to | fill the tank. | | The AWS "value add" is only value add in the context of | being locked into AWS in the first place. | soenkeliebau wrote: | I'm not sure if I like your comparison to be honest.. not | only is it not _just_ maintenance and filling the tank, | if we stick with your picture, there is also things like | buying the car, paying for it when no one uses it, | insuring the car, repairing the car, general logistics of | moving it around when someone has a one way rental, etc. | - basically making it convenient for consumers to rent a | car. | | Looking at what "as a service" providers of open source | software do though, that is taking it a step further, | since they wrap the software in a layer that _smoothes_ | out changes for the user. Going back to the rental | company that would equate to the car manufacturer | deciding the indicator needs to be on the right side of | the steering wheel now and the rental company installing | an adaptor so that it remains on the left for you, to | keep the look and feel for the user the same. | | Not a perfect comparison, but they never are :) | g9yuayon wrote: | A key reason for Netflix to have an easy-to-operate | infrastructure is that Netflix prioritizes productivity and | scalability. They specifically did three things: | | 1. No fixed deadline, with a few exceptions of course, for | platform-related projects. | | 2. Promotion/salary negotiation was not tied directly to | release of external features. | | 3. A single engineer could be responsible for more than one | service for the entire company, with 24x7 oncall. | | With Netflix establishing such incentives, engineers | naturally focus on getting infrastructure right, to the point | that oncall 24x7 is a non-issue. | | So, yeah, culture matters, big time. | | Edit: another incentive was that a service was measured by | its adoption. The more people praised it, the more successful | the service would be. Requiring meetings to get buy-in for a | new service was considered a sign of potential failure. As a | result, every single team focused on making the value | proposition of their services obvious. Path of least | resistance was a given instead of a debated topic. | throwaway823882 wrote: | > Is Amazon too big and a bully? | | Is Starbucks too big and a bully? Sure, they force Mom and Pop | shops to close by out-competing them, and that sucks. But | bullying? I believe that's just Capitalism. | | Or say you're 6'6 and weigh 230LBS and you join a football team | full of people who are 5'9 and 175lbs. Are you a bully just | because you're bigger? | | ES basically handed them a platter with a goose laying golden | eggs and a sign that read "Free Goose" and hoped they wouldn't | try to make money off the eggs. | StavrosK wrote: | > Is Starbucks too big and a bully? Sure, they force Mom and | Pop shops to close by out-competing them, and that sucks. But | bullying? I believe that's just Capitalism. | | I'd say it's more like a mom-and-pop coffee shop giving free | coffee to patrons hoping to make money on cookies, and | Starbucks coming in, taking the free coffee, opening a nice | stand right next to the shop and selling the coffee they got | for free. | | I'm having trouble justifying this ethically. | throwaway823882 wrote: | If they're giving you free coffee, and you sell the coffee | you got for free... where's the harm? Starbucks is _giving | it away_. Why would anyone buy your coffee rather than get | it for free from the source? | | Now, assuming Starbucks charged you for the coffee, and you | then re-sold it, this should also be fine. Starbucks is | charging you presumably a rate with which they can recoup | their costs. But if they are selling it _below_ cost, they | are clearly putting themselves at risk. A lot of businesses | take this kind of risk as a strategic part of their | business, like with making the coffee free. But you have to | do it in a way that a competitor can 't turn around to | their advantage, or you're screwing yourself. | | Enter the concept of "not for resale". If a seller enters | into a contract with a buyer, that contract can stipulate | that the buyer can't resell the goods. Starbucks could | theoretically require you to sign a contract saying you | will not resell their coffee. That's pretty standard with | licenses, even software licenses. | | ES must have known that their license did not forbid | reselling. Yet they based their business model on this | resellable coffee that they were giving away in order to | make money on cookies. | | Is it Amazon's fault that ES chose a business model where | they were selling coffee at a loss? Does Amazon have an | ethical responsibility to keep ES's business afloat? Should | we find any business unethical that tries to undercut the | customer base of a rival, or take advantage of a rival's | shaky business model? | | I think you have to come up with a whole framework for | ethical competition, because one rule at a time isn't gonna | capture it. (But I also think Capitalism is inherently | unethical) | nomel wrote: | How is it unethical if ES chose to explicitly allowed it | with the license they picked? The analogy would have to | include a sign under the free coffee that literally said | "Feel free to sell this free coffee for profit!", for it to | be accurate. | | I don't see how it's unethical if you do something that | someone said was perfectly fine to do. "Obvious chosen | outcome" comes to my mind long before "unethical". | notyourday wrote: | As someone who tried buying services from ES and had to deal | with their smug sales people that had a total disdain to those | who wanted to give ES money, I am happy I will never need to | deal with them in future. | 015a wrote: | One thing which surprised me: Elastic has a market | capitalization of ~$11B. | | I think that changes some of the more floaty ethical concerns. | This is not a David vs Goliath situation. This is Goliath vs | Super-Goliath. | | At this point, I'm much less interested in the drama of which | mega-corp is screwing over the other. I'm more interested in: | how does it affect me? When the titans are done trampling over | the rest of us, which side benefits me the most? | | Its too early to tell, but it seems like it'll be Amazon. The | product is more open. They have a demonstrated history of great | support. Yeah, they gouge us on networking and everything else, | but at least they're the devil we know, and buying into the | OpenSearch ecosystem has a greater probability of being the | more open solution into the next decade. | jimmy2020 wrote: | This argument is part of Amazon's PR campaign to tell devs to | not feel sorry for Elastic because it's now a big company and | they make money in the market. So, if you built a successful | OSS and start to make money then it's ethical to clone any | OSS and pushes projects out of the market because now it is | "Goliath vs Super-Goliath". | manigandham wrote: | Quite a few companies have proprietary products but have | learned to make money selling services. One of them even | has a 200B market cap and is called Oracle. | | Nobody needs to feel sorry for anyone. | jimmy2020 wrote: | Right. But the question here is not about companies value | in the market. Why changing the subject? This should be | about the ethics behind Amazon's aggressive actions | against OSS and its effect on the OSS industry. | manigandham wrote: | The value in the market is the subject of the parent | thread. Anyways, like I said, Elastic could've made money | with a proprietary product but they chose OSS instead | (and used Apache Lucene to build on). | | AWS is just offering customers what they want and there | are many other companies doing the same thing (IBM's | Compose, Aiven, Instaclustr, etc). How is this against | OSS? This is the OSS industry operating as intended. | jimmy2020 wrote: | > The value in the market is the subject of the parent | thread. | | As I said, it's a tactic to change the subject. Instead | of focusing on actions with bad faith, change the subject | by saying they have a lot of money so Amazon is allowed | to be competitive and fork the code. | | > AWS is just offering customers what they want. | | No. it's not AWS improving some services. It's about a | multi-billion dollar company launching a campaign against | OSS. They did it with MongoDB and it continues. Some see | these actions as justifiable. Because OSS should be MIT | and maintainers should live with donations. Others, | however, disagree. It can be OSS and profitable (without | Amazon actions). | pessimizer wrote: | Forking OSS isn't bad faith. If you want to make people | pay you, make your software proprietary. In that case, | however, you wouldn't get the free ride into the market | that being OSS gives you. | jimmy2020 wrote: | Yes. This is how you discourage people from doing OSS. | "You can't stop me" argument leads to a slippery slope | and if you care about the open-source you see it | differently. Not because you can, but because of the | consequences of your doing. | aardvarkr wrote: | Uhmmm I'm pretty sure David vs Goliath is talking about scale | between competition. Saying that $11B is Goliath just because | you're sitting at $1M doesn't mean they're not in a crazy | mismatched fight against a $2T company. In the same way you | could be in a David vs Goliath situation yourself if you with | $1M in wealth tried to sue someone with $25K of wealth. | Everything is relative. Doesn't mean it's not a crazy unfair | mismatch that doesn't deserve sympathy and regret. | ozim wrote: | To be realistic and fair I don't believe part of Amazon | that is doing fork of Elasticsearch is $2T, they have other | stuff to do. | | Just like the guy that is $1M worth is not going to blow | all of his money just to squash some guy. He probably has | more powerful friends and maybe some connections but I | don't see dumping $0.5m on lawyers just because he can take | piece of cake from the other guy that will make him $10k a | year. | | Imagine head of the department storming into Jeff Bezos | office telling that he needs 20% of all Amazon worth to | squash Elastic, that would be funny. Quick calc with 20% I | assume would be $20B which would be only x2 of Elastic, so | I don't see something like that happening. | 20kleagues wrote: | just a math correction: 20% of $2T is $400b - or about | 40x of Elastic | kodah wrote: | Put another way, the $11B Goliath is .55% of Super Goliaths | size. | bombcar wrote: | When there are two large entities (and I take this to mean | way larger than you or your company) then you're better off | rooting for the one that at least releases code you can | use. | | If OpenSearch is truely open then in theory you can find | another provider. But for ElasticSearch you're stuck with | them. | kfir wrote: | > But for ElasticSearch you're stuck with them. | | I am a bit at a loss about that statement, you can run | Elasticsearch on your on infrastructure | virgilp wrote: | That is not entirely true, of course. Not if you don't | want to pay. As proof - just look at Amazon, they can't | (that's why they forked it). | mikepurvis wrote: | I don't think it's the freedom to run it anywhere. It's | the freedom to run it anywhere _and make changes to it | that you don 't contribute back_: | | 1. Amazon wants to make private changes to the management | layer for their cloud offering and not share those. | | 2. ES doesn't want that, so the 7.11+ license restricts | it. | | 3. Amazon doesn't want to have to explain to their | customers why their ES offering is stuck on v7.10, so | they're changing the name of it. | | 4. Elastic was really hoping this wouldn't happen, but | they overestimated the value of their brand and Amazon | called their bluff. | | So yeah, nominally OpenSearch is unrestricted, but | realistically few other entities are in a position to | make or benefit from the private modifications Amazon | will be making. For us normal people, ES and OS are | equivalent today, so it's more about how they're going to | diverge over time in terms of fixes, features, whatever. | judge2020 wrote: | The SSPL directly prohibits offering the software as a | service without releasing the source code of your entire | operation regardless of if you change it or not: | | > If you make the functionality of the Program or a | modified version available to third parties as a service, | you must make the Service Source Code available via | network download to everyone at no charge... | | > "Service Source Code" means the Corresponding Source | for the Program or the modified version, and the | Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to | make the Program or modified version available as a | service, including, without limitation, management | software, user interfaces, application program | interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, | backup software, storage software and hosting software, | all such that a user could run an instance of the service | using the Service Source Code you make available. | | AKA someone must be able to create aws.example.com if aws | uses SSPL code. Not exactly the 'freedom to run it | anywhere'. | | https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public- | license.... | mikepurvis wrote: | Doesn't a lot of that hinge on what the "service" is? | Like, if I run some generic knowledgebase website and use | my own ES installation to provide user-facing search, | does Elastic want to see my Ansible scripts? Or just the | ones related to the search function? | | If this interpretation holds, I feel like it could be a | pretty big problem for companies like GitLab, who not | only have deep integration with ElasticSearch, but offer | it as a premium-tier feature: | | https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/integration/elasticsearch.html | | Maybe this really is just a cash grab from the Elastic | side, like, "it's too easy to self-host rather than | paying for our SaaS offering, so now you need to pay us | for many common self-hosting use cases also." | judge2020 wrote: | > Making the functionality of the Program or modified | version available to third parties as a service includes, | without limitation, enabling third parties to interact | with the functionality of the Program or modified version | remotely through a computer network, offering a service | the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the | value of the Program or modified version, or offering a | service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose | of the Program or modified version. | | This probably qualifies it as a service, but since it | looks like gitlab doesn't install it or redistribute it | Elastic isn't going to come after them (if they don't use | SSPL code then SSPL doesn't apply). Plus, GitLab is | effectively open-source, so they might meet the | qualification for using SSPL anyways. Of course, I am not | your/a lawyer. | DetroitThrow wrote: | There's several lawyers who believe the wording would | imply the problematic interpretation - /dev/lawyer is one | on the internet, one from my anecdotes is the lawyer who | advised the company I used to work at. | | SSPL doesn't come up under free or open source licenses | partly for this reason, actually. | DetroitThrow wrote: | Err, SSPL which Elasticsearch is licensed under isn't | AGPL - it's a viral, proprietary license - not quite the | copyleft we'd want if we wanted a fair playing field | between all actors working on it. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | It's a viral open source license, it literally requires | open sourcing code, there's nothing proprietary about it | except that we allow a council of elitist snots to decide | what is and isn't Open Source(TM), and they have decided | Google and Amazon support is more important than viable | businesses which are building open source businesses. | busterarm wrote: | The SSPL literally violates Freedom 0. | | > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any | purpose (freedom 0). | | And though we're talking about open source instead of | free software, without Freedom 0, the software still | might as well be proprietary. | | Edit: It also violates Rules 1, 5, 6 & 9 of the OSD. So | no, let's not call it "open source" | galaxyLogic wrote: | Could you provide a link to explain how it violates | "Rules 1, 5, 6 & 9 of the OSD"? Thanks | busterarm wrote: | Common freaking sense reading. | | https://opensource.org/osd | | If you can't use the software because you're a cloud | provider, that's rules 1, 5 and 6 easy. | | If using it forces you to relicense all of your code | under the SSPL that's rule 9. | | It is well known at this point that the SSPL withdrew | their request for recognition to the OSI because they do | not meet the rules of the OSD. | DetroitThrow wrote: | The principle of in the GNU manifesto would be that the | software is available for anyone to use in the same way, | such that Elastic isn't elevated to not disclose their | closed source additions to the software. | | At this point, they are directly violating that core | principle as well as the uncontroversial OSI directive 6 | which copyleftists like myself don't really have a | problem with... So I'm not sure what the issue here would | be other than you dislike the larger companies' | involvement in OSS? I think myself and others would | appreciate clarification. | Macha wrote: | If you think this is about Elastic caring about openness | and freedom, ask yourself why they don't drop the CLA for | a DCO and let themselves be beholden to the same terms | mixedCase wrote: | Quoting the comment you're replying to: | | > If OpenSearch is truely open then in theory you can | find another provider | | Those are the key words. With an open source solution | someone else can offer a turn-key solution that benefits | from economies of scale. | ForHackernews wrote: | Uh...can they? Who's going to benefit from more | "economies of scale" than Amazon, Alibaba? | unreal37 wrote: | Can Azure offer an OpenSearch service? Probably. | | So the idea is you can move from AWS to Azure if you | wanted to with open source services underneath. | 015a wrote: | I don't root for David because he's smaller. I root for him | because he's small. | kordlessagain wrote: | Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! | adamdusty wrote: | It may be relative but it isn't proportionate. A 11B market | cap company can field a similarly competent legal | department as a 2T market cap company can. I, with 25k, | absolutely could not afford the same lawyer someone with | 1M. | ozim wrote: | Have you considered that guy with $1M won't be willing to | drop like $50k (2x your net worth) on a lawyer just to | squash you? | | He must have possibility to earn $100k in process to do | that. Well unless you really pissed him off. | | If you earn $25k a year and he spends $50k in one year to | take your cake. Well unless he really is your competitor | that can make use of your defeat he still needs 2 years | to get even. Then it probably is not easy money because | there is always a risk he will not win. Maybe he can find | better ways to earn more money than squashing some $25k | guys. | reflexe wrote: | It it quite funny, elasticsearch is also kind of wrapping an | open source library (Apache Lucene) and selling it as their own | product. | downrightmike wrote: | This is Amazon's playbook. Make a direct competitor and squeeze | the originals out. They did that with jewelry early on and then | anyone they couldn't buy out they would under cut until they | capitulated like diapers.com The Everything Book by Brad Stone | goes over this in detail. Clearly anti-competitive monopolistic | actions are taken constantly by Amazon. The only reason they | aren't trust busted is because the common line of reasoning is | that consumers pay less for goods, but this is being looked at | because shouldn't competition be lowering prices. IE if Amazon | hadn't killed diapers.com, wouldn't diapers be cheaper overall? | And the answer is they should be, but the government hasn't | caught up. Once they start getting into the weeds, they'll see | example after example of monopoly behavior destroying | competitors and ultimately raising prices on consumers. | amzn-throw wrote: | > they can invest more resources into developing it than the | original team ever could. | | I know this is a popular narrative, but as someone who works on | AWS, I think you would be shocked by how small the individual | dev teams are that build and maintain the services that | everyone uses. | | I'm not going to downplay the network effects involved. Of | course AWS has a tremendous advantage in being able to | standardize the customer billing, IAM, and EC2 Usage. | | And there are economies of scale. | | But individual AWS service teams are: * incredibly lean and | focused * still have to make a profit on their own terms based | on the infrastructure they build and the fees they charge | customers * laser customer obsessed to solve people's | (developer's) direct needs. | | I understand the community's concern about AWS investment and | approach to OSS. But I can assure you (though you have no | reason to believe me) that the goal is never to embrace, | extend, then extinguish. It's all in the service of going where | the customers are, and solving problems that they tell us they | have. The profits are a byproduct. The "working backwards" | process is no joke. We spend a lot of time figuring out what is | the right thing for customers to build, start building it, and | THEN we think about how do we make money from it. | g9yuayon wrote: | In the world of OSS, code speaks. A small team may not help | the cause of Open Search. This article nails how code | influences leadership in an OSS project: | http://hypercritical.co/2013/04/12/code-hard-or-go-home | systemvoltage wrote: | Could you please shed some light on how many people would be | behind a product like AWS Lambda or AWS CloudWatch? | | As an outsider, I would guess huge swaths of developers with | a massive hierarchy. Buildings full of folks working on AWS | services. I have no idea and extremely curious. | waynesonfire wrote: | they have as many people dedicated to the capability as | needed. at least the capabilities have owners, which from my | experience is not trivial for an organization to achieve. | | curious if others have noticed this as well (capabilities | without clear owners)? what does this depend on? time? | company size? both? | tssva wrote: | "without violating the license a small startup put in place to | stop them?" | | Elasticsearch was first released over a decade ago. | ElasticSearch, now just Elastic, the company was founded over 9 | years ago and now is public. Are they still a "small startup"? | If so when does a company graduate from that status? | scarface74 wrote: | There is absolutely nothing "cloud agnostic" about using | Terraform. Every provisioner is specific to a cloud provider. | If you are at any scale, moving a k8s cluster is the least of | your issues. | api wrote: | You described the cloud lock in model very well, especially the | bandwidth part. What they charge for outbound is nuts, and the | other clouds are not much better. Inbound is free of course to | make it easy to send your data in but costly to get it out. | gsich wrote: | No need to feel bad. The CEO sold a lot of his shares prior to | the license change. | busterarm wrote: | As a longtime ElasticSearch cluster admin/developer and Elastic | Cloud customer, I don't feel bad for Elastic in the slightest | and I'm psyched about this fork. | | The way they operate their cloud service leaves a lot to be | desired and encourages maximum spend if you end up wanting to | use it for anything demanding in production. | ProAm wrote: | > The way they operate their cloud service leaves a lot to be | desired and encourages maximum spend | | Pretty sure this is the definition of SAAS and IAAS | busterarm wrote: | They all give you levers. I'm more referring to being | required to overspend to overcome Elastic's incompetence | (i.e., you're already aware of the levers, they're maxed | out and the provider doesn't have a way forward). | | Referring to my other example, in more detail: Elastic | Cloud suggests operating your cluster across 3 datacenters | for redundancy. This is a good idea. Then Elastic does | maintenance in all three datacenters that your | infrastructure is in at once and takes your clusters hard | down. This is fucking stupid. Elastic's suggested solution | to the problem: Operate a _duplicate_ cluster in 3 | datacenters in a different region/provider. No guarantees | that they won't do the same there either so it's not | actually a solution. | cassianoleal wrote: | Not to mention the support is pretty slow to respond and | rarely respond adequately. | | At my current client we started with their cloud and in a few | months deployed our own in Kubernetes using the official | operator. | | It's a lot cheaper and gives us fewer headaches this way. | busterarm wrote: | My favorite moment as a customer dealing with all of the | random times _they_ would take us down (even with triple | redundancy) was their suggestion of operating a duplicate 3 | datacenter cluster in production as a hot spare. | | They must think their customers are cash machines. | bombcar wrote: | I mean if they were truely best of breed they wouldn't | have needed a license change now would they? | busterarm wrote: | Indeed, although I'd say for a majority of situations, | Amazon's hosted Elasticsearch service is a complete non- | starter. | damon_c wrote: | Why is it a non-starter? I have a few ElasticSearch | clusters that have been running for years with zero | effort/downtime/hassle. | x3n0ph3n3 wrote: | It's pretty bad when you reach the 40-50 node scale with | 10's or 100's of TB of data. I've had about half dozen | calls with their service team about this over the last | year. | busterarm wrote: | What the other guy said. | | Also my saying that is extremely colored by experiences | with pre-ES6 versions, where AWS's offering didn't have | many of the configuration knobs available that you really | _need_ to operate a decent cluster. | hospadar wrote: | Personal experience is that AWS elasticsearch has often | been missing some really useful stuff, index rebalancing, | some of the utility endpoints that avoid me having to | spend forever rebuilding indexes, etc. I'd be a little | spooked to run something really huge and customer-facing | (maybe it's possible and I'm a n00b, but for the money we | pay, it should be n00b friendly). | | It's always great (really, it was quite easy to get | started and usually works) until it's not (a couple times | have had indexes break, or had to reindex to a fresh | cluster to fix balancing problems). | | I'm sure LOTS of people use aws elasticsearch for big, | user-facing stuff, but I often feel you'd be better off | managing it yourself if it were truly critical. | bogomipz wrote: | This is really a shame to hear. There was once a an Elastic | SaaS company from Norway called found.io that were pretty | sharp and customer-centric. They were acquired be Elastic | pretty early on[1]. I believe Elastic Cloud was built from | this. I guess found.io's culture of delivering a good product | didn't survive? | | https://www.elastic.co/about/press/elastic-acquires- | elastics... | dijit wrote: | Honestly the amount of negativity towards Elastic in this | thread is jarring. I've been an ES customer (self hosted, | some cloud) for years and have only good things to say | about them. Maybe I'm less a fan of the number of features | they try to bake in and the direction of the company | towards using logs for metrics (which causes heavy disk | load instead of just storing metrics in time series) but. | Yeah. | | I truly believe the negative voices are coming to the fore | in this thread or they are paid Amazon folks (or they have | a vested interest in AWS succeeding here). | busterarm wrote: | So everyone who doesn't share your experience is a paid | actor? Not on throwaway accounts? | bigtones wrote: | Are you even a customer if you don't pay Elastic any | money ? Your a user, sure, but not a customer. | | These other opinions and negative voices you reference | come from actual customers who pay Elastic large sums of | money, and they feel they don't get good value and | service for that money they're forking over. | dijit wrote: | You cannot use the cloud systems without paying; how on | earth do you figure I'm not a customer from what I wrote? | bigtones wrote: | Because you said you're "self hosted" on 'some cloud'. | You don't need to pay Elastic if you're self-hosted and | not using the Elastic Cloud - you can just download it | and use it for free. | narism wrote: | They could be paying Elastic for gold/plat/etc licenses | on their self hosted instances or "self hosted, some | cloud" could mean they run mostly self hosted with some | Elastic cloud usage. | jnwatson wrote: | How is it price gouging if the price is on the tin? It isn't | like there's a "surprise" as to how much they charge, and it | isn't like there aren't a dozen alternatives including DIY. | | I'm the first to say that AWS is too expensive, and I vote with | my wallet (and the company I work for by proxy). But I'll never | claim that there's any gouging involved. | ballenf wrote: | Price gouging is the practice of using outsized leverage in a | particular market to charge excessive prices. Like snow | shovels doubling in price after a snow storm. Or $10 water | bottles after a hurricane. | | So for AWS the term is arguably correctly applied. | | But I'd be more worried about the market if AWS was | artificially undercutting pricing because it would kill the | incentive to create competitors or innovation in the space. | sofixa wrote: | > Price gouging is the practice of using outsized leverage | in a particular market to charge excessive prices. Like | snow shovels doubling in price after a snow storm. Or $10 | water bottles after a hurricane. > So for AWS the term is | arguably correctly applied | | What outsized leverage have AWS had for a decade? There are | multiple competitors at different levels, AWS are just | better in terms of coverage/redundancy and amount of | services. | jen20 wrote: | > So for AWS the term is arguably correctly applied. | | Can you elicit the argument by which this is correctly | applied? | marvindanig wrote: | Coincidentally, AWS hasn't open-sourced anything that they use | internally. Zilch. Nada. And yet they are using 'open source' | developed by another firm (smaller is inconsequential here) to | market themselves. | | IMO, FOSS licensing is completely broken. Its definitions (of | what is free/open) are from a boomer's era that is no longer | sustainable today. | grumple wrote: | Here are the main reasons to make open source software: | | To provide something for free, public use | | To get the world to help you maintain your software | | A reason to not make open source software: | | You want the exclusive right to offer that software as part of | a paid service | | This is not the first instance of a company not understanding | the last point there, and it won't be the last. | fastball wrote: | I think the claim that Amazon is winning through "vendor lock- | in" is pretty silly. Honestly anyone who can't quickly migrate | the stuff they're hosting on AWS onto one of the many other | cloud platforms is pretty bad at DevOps. If you're using | K8S/Docker/etc it should be _trivial_. But even if you 're not, | the vast majority of AWS offerings were either built to be API- | compatible with other existing tools (e.g. postgres-compat | Aurora RDS), are literally identical to other services you can | self-host (e.g. ElasticSearch) or _others_ have built services | compatible with AWS services (e.g. DigitalOcean 's "Spaces" aim | to be API identical to AWS S3 - you can literally use Amazon's | S3 client libs to interact with various S3-compat services from | other clouds). | | It's not "lock-in", it's providing a great all-in-one solution. | You can host everything you want to host on AWS, which has good | stability, good latency, etc. People are locked in because the | DX around using AWS for everything your platform needs is just | _better_ than other platforms / having different services on | different cloud providers (at least for many people). | StreamBright wrote: | Do you know can I migrate my sophisticated security setup | easily over? Including users, groups, roles, policies and | instance policies. | fastball wrote: | Everything on AWS is accessible via API, which means you | can easily automate the migration process. So do that? | | Obviously the more complex a system is the harder it will | be to migrate, but that has nothing to do with Amazon | trying to "lock you in" and everything to do with it just | being a complex system that there is no industry standard | solution for. | real_joschi wrote: | If you're not using any of the AWS services, that might be | true but then you're also leaving a lot of potential on the | table. | | If you're "cloud-agnostic" and could migrate away from AWS in | the blink of an eye then you're paying for an overpriced VM | offering and should probably migrate to a cheaper hosting | provider immediately. | busterarm wrote: | > If you're "cloud-agnostic" and could migrate away from | AWS in the blink of an eye then you're paying for an | overpriced VM offering and should probably migrate to a | cheaper hosting provider immediately. | | No this is what everyone suggesting this does not get. The | offerings are not equivalent. | | There are a baseline of services that the cloud providers | offer that can be made functionally-equivalent. It's not | just EC2 but more like EC2,S3,Lambda,RDS,DynamoDB,ECS,EKS | (plus some others and of course the other cloud's | equivalents). The secret sauce is in the APIs and | permisioning and all of these available within the same VPC | (talking to each other without paying bandwidth costs). | | "Cloud-agnostic" has _never_ meant "just VMs". Some of | these services are majorly hard to duplicate on your own | VMs as well. Feel free to implement "cheap VM hosting + S3" | and burn cash on transit costs. | | Cheaper hosting providers do not give you this by miles. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > all of these available within the same VPC (talking to | each other without paying bandwidth costs). | | That's one of the real key issues, I think. | | If bandwidth is 10x cheaper, then maybe you decide it's | fine if only half your inter-server bandwidth is free. | busterarm wrote: | It's always worth measuring/understanding your | application because likely it's not "half" but skews | heavily one way or the other (in vs out). | JamesSwift wrote: | The lock in is real, but they are also the best cloud option | and its not even close in my opinion. | fastball wrote: | What would you say they lock you into? What is AWS doing | specifically that makes it harder to move between providers | than if they were not doing that thing? | JamesSwift wrote: | 1) A vast majority of users are relying on managed | services to some degree. | | 2) Permissions as a whole are usually very ingrained into | much of what orgs rely on. | fastball wrote: | What do you mean when you say managed services? Because | to me managed services are definitely _not_ vendor lock- | in because you can self-host most of those services and | just migrate your data over. | | With regards to permissions, I don't feel like it's | possible to permission across an entire platform and not | make it difficult to migrate over - do you know of any | provider or platform that allows for cross-platform | authentication with permissions? | JamesSwift wrote: | I generally think of managed services as anything not run | directly on EC2. | | I agree about permissions. I'm just illustrating where | the lock in occurs. | ukd1 wrote: | I buy the main reason being the all-in-one solution; the | comprehensiveness is attractive. However, I think you're | underplaying the lock-in: migrating clouds is non-trivial - | mostly due to stuff that's not running in k8s/docker/etc; | stateful apps (Postgres, etc), and or just static data like | s3. This takes time, and careful planning and sometimes | downtime - and is mostly avoided due to it being hard. | fastball wrote: | I specifically talked about state and storage. | | You're conflating the difficulty of migrating a complex | system to _anywhere_ with "vendor lock-in". It would be | _harder_ to migrate an Aurora RDS Postgresql instance to an | Aurora RDS MySQL instance than it would be to migrate from | Aurora RDS (postgres) to a hosted postgres anywhere else. | | That to me screams "not vendor lock-in". | minhazm wrote: | Is it really price gouging for bandwidth? Or is bandwidth just | really expensive in general? I honestly don't know. I would | assume if it was actually much cheaper one of the cloud's would | undercut the other to get customers. | arkitaip wrote: | Why would players in an oligopoly undercut each other when | their implicit agreement around pricing makes all of them | richer? Also, second tier cloud providers like Oracle give | deep discounts and still can't compete with AWAZGO so pricing | isn't necessarily a main competitive advantage. | kmeisthax wrote: | Oracle's problem is that nobody wants to work with Oracle. | If I was managing a high-bandwidth service I would avoid | Oracle Cloud purely to avoid legal risk to my clients. | DetroitThrow wrote: | While I agree that's why no one uses Oracle, corps not | competing for price at the tier 1 provider level still | isn't great for the consumer/market, which is what I | think the original commenter was getting at. | VectorLock wrote: | I'm kind of surprised that people are this upset about how | much AWS charges for bandwidth. They may charge more for | bandwidth than a colo would but they're not a colo. A colo | you get a network port and -thats it- you provide everything | else yourself, with its attendant cost, and you roll that up | into your total bill. | | If a colo provides you a 1 Gbps connection if you use less, | you don't get a refund. And most of the time you don't get | 24/7 saturation, or you get charged on some 95th percentile | billing, and their networks are almost always oversubscribed | anyways. | | AWS is trying to disincentivize using it as a dumb pipe. They | want you to use it smartly and if you just want to push | static data there are much more cost effective ways to do it, | such as CDNs, which are more cost effective for both you AND | AWS. | | Comparing AWS bandwidth costs and Colo and even other clouds | like Oracle isn't fair because different things are | associated with that cost. | TechBro8615 wrote: | It's absolutely price gouging. I'm not going to rant about | this for the 100th time, but at least I'm in good company | [0]. Do the math on the cost you pay if you saturate 1gbps | for a month vs. the cost you pay for 1gbps IP transit at | basically any colocation provider. | | Really this is the secret sauce of the cloud. Create new | abstraction layers where you can charge for logical | separation on a physical basis. First VMs, then containers, | then serverless... Would be cool if somebody did it with | bandwidth (looking at you, Cloudflare). Why can't I buy an | elastically sized pipe? Why do I need to pay for the stuff I | put through it instead of reserving a size for the time I'll | need it? | | [0] https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1371252709836263425 | maximente wrote: | boy howdy, with all the flak i hear about this and the | awesome talent in tech, you'd figure an entrepreneur or | 1000 would take a stab at this, make it better, charge | less. apparently there's gazillions to be made by even | charging 50 percent of what AWS does. | | so, when should we expect this gloriously efficient | competitive market to kick in to action? | | my guess is that the AWS ecosystem, despite "price | gouging", is simply the best and will be because this is | really hard, non-glorious engineering, where solid | reliability actually matters. anyone who wants to can go | ahead and co-lo, so, whatever. people who want cloud will | pay, and those who can't or won't, will not. | Dylan16807 wrote: | What competitive market? | | Nobody else can give you bandwidth out of Amazon data | centers. Amazon's advantage is having a ton of services | that work together, and they take advantage of it to | price gouge on bandwidth. | | If you're buying a standalone CDN service you can get | massively better rates. | lostcolony wrote: | Your point that "AWS has a bunch of other benefits to | where people just accept the bandwidth costs so they can | leverage those other benefits" doesn't actually counter | the original claim that "the bandwidth costs are | outrageously overpriced". | toast0 wrote: | There's tons of businesses that are happy to charge less | for bandwidth; so it's clear Amazon (and some of the | other high tier cloud services) are overcharging on this | maybe by a factor of 10, although since transit bits are | not all equal, someone with more detail could make a case | that the overcharging is less. | | It's easyish to compete on bandwidth costs, but Amazon | has a lot of other features many people want; it's harder | to replicate all of those, especially the part about | having a long history of operating such services and not | making a lot of changes to make things more expensive or | otherwise more difficult. Having to pay a much higher | than market price for an easily replaced good in order to | get a good that's less easily replaced is textbook anti- | competive bundling. | | If your bandwidth usage is high enough, maybe it makes | sense to send it all through AWS direct connect, and pay | for transit yourself; although even then, the AWS direct | pricing seems a bit high. | VectorLock wrote: | This is like going to a fancy restaurant and being upset | that they charge so much for a steak when you can get | beef at the supermarket for much less. | stefan_ wrote: | If you ask the fancy restaurant to cater a steak dinner | for 1000 people they will charge you a lot closer to | supermarket beef. | | The point is that if you charge absurd prices for what | has basically no marginal cost your pricing model is | broken and 1) you are excluding customers that are | particularly sensitive to _this price_ or 2) you are | liable to undercharge other customers that primarily use | other services for which you are not charging what it | costs you to provide. | | For AWS, given the generally inflated prices, it's | probably a lot more of 1) than 2). | VectorLock wrote: | As I explained in another commented AWS wants to | disincentivize dumb bandwidth usage. They want you to use | your bandwidth for traffic that needs it to EC2, and you | get much better rates for static data from CDNs, S3, etc. | manigandham wrote: | You're replying to a comment that includes a tweet from | the CEO of Cloudflare, which is quite literally providing | that competition with free bandwidth and an increasing | suite of computing products. | | There are plenty of other platforms as well, like | Digitalocean, that have much lower bandwidth pricing. | sofixa wrote: | That Twitter thread is only including pure bandwidth. What | about all the highly redundant networking equipment ( | firewalls, routers, switches, Nitro offloading, DDoS | protection, attack detection), software for all those | abstractions you get ( VPCs, subnets, security groups, vpc | peerings, Elastic IPs etc. ) and engineers? None of what i | listed you pay for directly, and bandwidth seems to be the | most reasonable product to lump it all in. | | It's like going to a restaurant and complaining about the | price of steaks because beef should cost a lot less. | There's a ton of other things involved, and yes, they | probably have a decent margin, but not as much as you | initially imply. | stefan_ wrote: | Keep in mind bandwidth gets cheaper as AWS gets bigger. If | you are some random tiny colo provider, people don't | necessarily care to peer with you unless you pay them for the | privilege. If you are originating 20% of internet traffic, | now people _need_ to peer with you or their customers won 't | have a great experience. | GordonS wrote: | It _really_ is price gouging - bandwidth is actually cheap. | | A couple of comparisons: | | Oracle Cloud give you 10TB of bandwidth for free, with | overage charged at around EUR7.5/TB. | | You can rent a VPS from the likes of Hetzner, and they will | throw in 2-20TB of bandwidth for free, with overage charged | at something like EUR1/TB - AWS charge an eye-watering EUR125 | for each TB! | | I think the reason the big 3 (AWS, Azure, GCP) still charge | such huge amounts is that they profit so greatly from it, and | there is more than enough business to go round. | rodgerd wrote: | I would say that it's two simple factors: | | 1. High bandwidth charges are an effective form of lock-in. | Once your data is there, it's prohibitive to move it out | again. | | 2. Bandwidth use is very poorly understood in many | businesses, compared with simpler metrics like storage, | memory, and CPU. AWS can run razor-thin margins on things | that people easily compare to on-prem or VPS-style | offerings, and then make the money back in areas like | network traffic, fine-grained monitoring, and other items | that as less obvious. | martinald wrote: | I totally agree, but was stunned to see DigitalOcean | charging $0.10/GB for outbound transfer for their new | (quite cool imo) apps service. You do get 40GB-100GB | included, but it means it's unusable for bandwidth heavy | apps. They include 1TB (which is pooled across all VMs) and | 0.01/GB on their standard platform. | GordonS wrote: | Yeah, I think Digital Ocean are really taking the piss | there - proven by their existing $0.01/GB pricing, as you | mentioned. | | I reckon DO have seen the big providers getting away with | it, and they want a piece. Why wouldn't they, when there | is apparently so little pushback? | martinald wrote: | I suppose you have object storage which is still $0.01/GB | (plus includes 1TB to start with), so for most apps your | bandwidth will come out of that for most files, so your | 0.1/GB price is only for html/api/etc transfer. But | still, it's annoying and seems completely arbitatary. | sofixa wrote: | > I think the reason the big 3 (AWS, Azure, GCP) still | charge such huge amounts is that they profit so greatly | from it, and there is more than enough business to go round | | Or that their networking does vastly more and is of better | quality? Hetzner can't provide you with everything around a | VPC that AWS do. Just a tiny example - peering VPCs across | regions, which is free. | veeti wrote: | You know you're greedy when Oracle is cheaper | gnfargbl wrote: | IP transit costs something like $350-$700/mo for a Gbit. | Amazon are certainly getting better rates, so even with | equipment costs I doubt they're spending much more than | $0.005/GiB. Their pricing starts at $0.15/GiB. (Not to single | out AWS, the other big providers are much the same.) | ev1 wrote: | I'm below $100/1Gbps 95% with more than one provider as a | small player | gnfargbl wrote: | That's sounds like a _great_ deal: you 're paying less | than half of Hurricane's advertised minimum price. And I | had understood HE were a mid/low price carrier. | | Can I ask, are you in a data center? US or Europe? | ev1 wrote: | What do you mean? Hurricane's current special is | $90/1Gbit/m. | | US. | | Some of the larger bandwidth transit resellers like FDC | will do Cogent for $0.02/Mbps. They have a marketing site | at epyc100gig.net (not an affiliate or employee; just a | FDC customer). | gnfargbl wrote: | OK, either I'm getting pretty screwed somewhere or EU | prices are well above the US. Probably the former. Thanks | for the pointer. | | https://he.net/cgi-bin/ip_transit_quote is where I'm | seeing the $200 number. | ev1 wrote: | On front page https://www.he.net/ there's a special in | the top right :) | | I believe that kind of low-for-1G-commit pricing is for | their fully owned FMT1/FMT2 US CA facility. You have a | lot easier peering in EU (AMSIX, DECIX, etc) that will | help compared to the US's love of commercial exchanges | like Any2/Coresite/Equinix where peering costs | practically more than transit. | gatvol wrote: | If you think AWS is expensive, give AZURE a go and be | appalled. | dariusj18 wrote: | > Amazon is not doing it for any altruistic reason | | The beauty of OSS is that motives don't matter. If Amazon | contributes and it's not detrimental in someway to the code, | then it's a plus for anyone else who wants to use it. | DetroitThrow wrote: | Precisely! While their business itself may need to be broken | up, a community governed OSS project isn't bad for OSS when | the alternative is a proprietary license that gives a single | corp the ability to not contribute back or be exposed to | virality. | | All this being said, progressive corporate taxes seem more | enticing year after year. | InTheArena wrote: | I suspect this is mostly AWS trying to stop using "ElasticSearch" | in the title of something, probably for trademark reasons. | mumblemumble wrote: | It's been said that the best way to fortify your business is to | use your clout to make the world inhospitable for adjacent | businesses. | | As someone who is not currently in the cloud, that idea strikes | me as being very pertinent to what's happening here. Increasingly | many technologies are becoming cloud-only, or have non-cloud | offerings that are decidedly second-class. Elastic offers on-prem | support. I doubt Amazon will be doing the same with OpenSearch. | | It may be a subtle effect, but it's pushing the world in a | direction that makes me uncomfortable. If it's harder for non- | cloud-based companies to maintain non-cloud-based offerings, then | that will push the industry even more toward being dominated by | SaaS products. And these products often leave clients and users | locked in, with limited control over their own data, and, by | extension, reduced ability to control their own fates. What I | worry about is that we may be witnessing a return of Embrace, | Extend, Extinguish, only in a new form that's even more dangerous | because it's harder to see. | | I appreciate the discomfort people have about the SSPL. It is a | departure from the original ideas behind FOSS. But, at least as I | see it, those open source principles were never an end in and of | themselves. They're a means to a greater end: digital autonomy. | To the extent that very large companies seem to be learning how | to co-opt FOSS in order to re-assert control, FOSS's ability, in | its current incarnation, to serve that end may be waning. | busterarm wrote: | Elastic's on prem support amounts to little more than an onsite | where they explain to you how the Java Garbage Collector works. | EVERY detail about tuning your clusters derives from keeping | the Java GC from ruining your day. | | There's some index template optimizations but any semi- | competent engineer or dba should be able to figure all that out | (it's literally all in the documentation about what not to do). | | You'll still be able to pay a consultant to come help you -- | they don't have to be from Elastic. | | In fact, it seems like Amazon just created an industry for | third party consultants here. | ddevault wrote: | I'm happy to see a couple of good choices made here: | | - Sticking with Apache 2.0 | | - Asking for a Developer Certificate-of-Origin rather than a | copyright assignment | | This bodes well for the future of this fork. Amazon also has the | resources necessary to keep up consistent and quality maintenance | of a project on this scale. | | Elastic would definitely like you to view AWS as the Big Bad | here, but their response to the Elastic betrayal is very good, | and I would like to see more like this in the future. | fallat wrote: | So as someone who has heard about Elasticsearch for years and | years, and seen all this, right this moment I've decided to see | what it really is. | | On their home page, "Why use Elastic search?", the reasons are | basically: | | * It's fast! | | * It does a lot of stuff! | | * It has some tools to visualize data! | | * It's distributed!! | | I have to say this is not very appealing to me since it sounds | like something any database could do. | manigandham wrote: | The Elastic website has a dedicated page to explain: | https://www.elastic.co/what-is/elasticsearch | | _" Elasticsearch is a distributed, free and open search and | analytics engine for all types of data, including textual, | numerical, geospatial, structured, and unstructured. | Elasticsearch is built on Apache Lucene and was first released | in 2010..."_ | | I suggest understanding what it is first before comparing it to | other databases. | fallat wrote: | A lot of databases handle many types of data. | [deleted] | villasv wrote: | You're starting from the wrong place if you're comparing | Elasticsearch with a database. And you're also arriving at the | wrong place if you think that any database can be distributed. | WrtCdEvrydy wrote: | Elastic gives you a lot of the fancy stuff that SQL kinda needs | extras and hard work for... but it's just a document store with | fancy weighting features. | xapata wrote: | > just a document store | | With a particular profile of efficiency choices and | interfaces that might appeal to your project. | api_or_ipa wrote: | Elasticsearch is a no-sql database that optimizes for full-text | searches, built atop Apache Lucene. If you're doing any kind of | full-text search, for example, if you're trying to index a | university library and make it searchable, then elasticsearch | is for you. If you're not, I'd look elsewhere. | xapata wrote: | Devil is in the details. | candiddevmike wrote: | Will be interesting if other cloud providers (Google, Azure) | offer this or you see other software companies offer support for | it. | | Will also be an interesting case study if the community shifts to | this project and it dwarfs elastic for features. | galaxyLogic wrote: | I wonder if ES had originally been AGPL licensed would that have | helped them? If Amazon adapts AGPL code to integrate it with | their own infra=structure doesn't that in fact mean that all of | Amazons' software-based infra-structure would become AGPL as | well, and thus easily reproduced by Google Cloud, MS Cloud, | Oracle Cloud etc.? Or even inhouse? In other words wouldn't it | mean it would be easy to replicate the Amazon Cloud-business (on | a smaller scale)? | lacker wrote: | Amazon just wouldn't do that. They would either not offer it as | a service, or make a clone from the beginning like they did | with MongoDB. In general none of the cloud providers are | actually willing to comply with the AGPL license. | pessimizer wrote: | Offering the unaltered software as a service, or forking it | and releasing all of your changes under AGPL _does_ comply | with AGPL. | rurban wrote: | They took over FreeRTOS for good, CBMC for good, with Xen they | were a bit unlucky, but it still has much better security than | KVM, and now they take over ElasticSearch. | | Good Open Source efforts, much better than until a few years ago. | luke2m wrote: | This is just sad, amazon playing the victim. | whydoineedthis wrote: | anyone know if OpenSearch still uses "/" as a special character? | Largest pita when trying to use ES for logging web applications | and quite frankly, made it near unusable. | | If Amazon fixed that, I would be firmly on their side. Also, any | improvement over Kibana would be welcome. | hit8run wrote: | Perfect case for a megacorp destroying open source plus business | models. I start to hate amazon with a passion. Craziest thing is | they are not paying taxes in Europe though they dominate the | market. Amazon needs be broken up. It's too big and too mighty. | themolecularman wrote: | cancel amazon prime? | | It's not too difficult to wait an extra day or two for | products. | kizer wrote: | What about the thing that is already named OpenSearch? | dewitt wrote: | I'm the co-author and maintainer of the OpenSearch syndication | protocol and I posted in support of reusing the name here: | https://groups.google.com/g/opensearch/c/gi-iVJZgfdA | kizer wrote: | Turns out that was developed by Amazon according to Wikipedia. | So maybe they're merging that usage into this offering (since | that is a spec for search results)? | carlfmeadows wrote: | Yeah the original OpenSearch project is a different enough | domain that I think confusion will be minimal. We have talked | to the maintainer and he is supportive. We have also posted | disambiguation in case anyone does get confused. | https://opensearch.org/disambiguation.html | jrochkind1 wrote: | In general I'm supportive of an Amazon open source fork here. | | But the name re-use is unfortunate. | | Amazon's argument seems to be "Don't worry, we own the | trademark for 'OpenSearch' cause it came out of Amazon | originally, so it's cool!" | | That is really poor stewardship of the Intellectual Property | of the trademark of a name that was part of a _standard_ that | was meant to be an open multi-vendor standard. Amazon owned | the trademark to protect it 's use under that standard, not | to re-use it for something totally different harming the | standard further. | | But it's just another indication that the original | Opensearch, like the era of believing in open web standards | for inter-operability that it was part of, is dead. | DetroitThrow wrote: | I agree, it speaks poorly for their stewardship | tardyp wrote: | There is also https://www.opensearchserver.com/ which is the | first result when your search "opensearch docker". | kizer wrote: | It's what Chrome's tab to search utilizes. If you implement the | protocol users can tab-to-search your site even with | autocomplete. | sunilkumarc wrote: | Interesting! | | On a different note, recently I was looking to learn AWS concepts | through online courses. After so much of research I finally found | this e-book on Gumroad which is written by Daniel Vassallo who | has worked in AWS team for 10+ years. I found this e-book very | helpful as a beginner. | | This book covers most of the topics that you need to learn to get | started: | | If someone is interested, here is the link :) | | https://gumroad.com/a/238777459/MsVlG | [deleted] | mekster wrote: | Are people actually required to use ELK? What are your use cases? | | The interface is completely cluttered and it takes loads of | resource and it feels like it's waiting to be replaced with | lighter and more focused products. | | Graylog (though it uses Elasticsearch internally) does a decent | job at log handling and creating all the visual items out of logs | and Grafana/Loki can do quite good at it as well with a very | small memory footprint. | | Besides, most of the "business intelligences" aren't actionable | but just some visual arts you wouldn't need but to stare at when | you're bored. | mdaniel wrote: | I recently learned that Graylog changed their license and it's | now one of those vanity licenses: | https://github.com/Graylog2/graylog2-server/blob/master/LICE... | oever wrote: | The new name clashes with the Open Search Foundation. | | https://opensearchfoundation.org/ | DetroitThrow wrote: | That's extremely frustrating | busterarm wrote: | Amazon was using the term "OpenSearch" themselves (via former | subsidiary A9) back in 2012. | https://github.com/dewitt/opensearch/ | noitpmeder wrote: | Like they care ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-12 23:00 UTC)