Twitter | Search | |
Matt Asay
Weird. The "Great Satan of Open Source," that destroyer of open source value, is actively contributing to a project that, theoretically, it is bent on destroying. Maybe we have to change the AWS narrative?
Reply Retweet Like More
Kyle E. Mitchell Mar 11
Replying to @mjasay
If AWS kneecaps Elastic NV, Elastic NV won't be able to fund so much contribution to open Elastic, and other companies trying to raise money or recruit talent to run similar business models will face doubts. They won't be able to contribute so much to their open cores, either.
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 11
Replying to @kemitchell
I love that the new "kneecapping" is "actively contributing to the upstream" 😂 (I mean, I do understand your point, but before the narrative was "they take and don't give." Now they give and people redefine that as taking)
Reply Retweet Like
Kyle E. Mitchell Mar 11
Replying to @mjasay
Without expression and understanding of that nuance, we're stuck in the same old rhetorical loop:
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 11
Replying to @kemitchell
But in this case, they seem to be opening up things that Elastic has closed. This doesn't bode well for Elastic but does seem to be a positive for the project, no? Because if AWS and a real community forms around Elasticsearch, that's long-term much better than one co funding it
Reply Retweet Like
Kyle E. Mitchell Mar 11
Replying to @mjasay
"The big company may be contributing back, even contributing more, overall, than the small company. But it isn't contributing back to the small company or its efforts. It may in fact be strangling them." Isn't that what AWS is doing to NV's paid add-on business?
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 11
Replying to @kemitchell
Possibly, but see my last tweet. If we care about the project, it's actually much better for a community to spin up around the project, rather than be fed by one committed company. (I don't want to see 1 Elastic replaced by 1 AWS, but if it's AWS + others that is an upgrade)
Reply Retweet Like
Kyle E. Mitchell Mar 11
Replying to @mjasay @asynchio
and I were on about this in a big way over the weekend. You're right. It's a ratchet. AWS is opening substitutes for what NV closed: its closed shell or "crust". Good move for AWS. What's the good move for NV? Keep putting work into the open core?
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 11
Replying to @kemitchell @asynchio
Sorry, when you say "crust" I immediately start worrying about sun crust on the powder I need to keep skiing. You have effectively distracted me from the conversation at hand :-)
Reply Retweet Like
Kyle E. Mitchell Mar 11
Replying to @mjasay @asynchio
I don't ski, but if you do, ski!
Reply Retweet Like
Philipp Krenn Mar 11
Replying to @mjasay @kemitchell
nothing that was ever open source in elasticsearch was closed — this is simply FUD. also the code as of today is (at least to a large extent) rebranded existing open source code from others — not all the license headers were stripped out
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 11
Replying to @kemitchell @asynchio
Already did this am at 5:30. :-)
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 11
Replying to @xeraa @kemitchell
Philipp, you mean AWS was spreading FUD in its blog post? Understood. But what I don't understand is your next point: are you saying the "new" distro AWS/others have launched isn't really "new"? Trying to understand...
Reply Retweet Like
Kyle E. Mitchell Mar 11
Replying to @adrianco @mjasay
You missed my point. Did you offer to give NV money, co-promo, a resale deal, a JV, a tender offer? Anything other than code, especially code that would compete with their paid offerings?
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 11
Replying to @kemitchell @adrianco
But Kyle, this confuses the company with the community. I don't think *any* company is owed a living, as it were. If AWS does, in fact, contribute heavily to the project, that's actually better than propping up the company
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 11
Replying to @johnmark @_msw_ and 3 others
To me this really is a battle between one company open source towns and community-driven open source. Kyle may be right that the single vendor is crucial to sustainable dev, but my sense is it's the opposite. We need community, even at the expense of an individual co's investors
Reply Retweet Like
Adam Jacob Mar 11
Replying to @mjasay @johnmark and 3 others
There is a lot of very successful open source that’s roughly single vendor. The issue is open core trades freedom for perceived monetization gains. As soon as the tent is bigger than one monetizer, that tension is instantly untenable. That’s without taking users at all.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephen Walli Mar 11
Replying to @mjasay
I would feel better about the contribution narrative if they weren’t abusing a small company’s trademark.
Reply Retweet Like
Kyle E. Mitchell Mar 11
Replying to @rgardler @mjasay and 4 others
What's the difference between a business model and motivation to contribute, as an individual? What's the difference between open source developed by 100 coders who work for one company, and 100 coders who work for 10 companies?
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay Mar 12
Huge difference, both in desire to contribute (little incentive to contribute to a monopoly) and sustainability (split between 10 and any one of those companies can disappear and the project won't)
Reply Retweet Like