We merged the related threads. Here are the relevant blog posts:<p><a href="https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-open-open-distro-for-elasticsearch/" rel="nofollow">https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-...</a><p><a href="https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-open-distro-for-elasticsearch/" rel="nofollow">https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-open-distro-for-elastic...</a>
AWS explains their rationale at <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-open-open-distro-for-elasticsearch/" rel="nofollow">https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/keeping-open-source-...</a> . Here's a snippet"<p>"
Unfortunately, since June 2018, we have witnessed significant intermingling of proprietary code into the code base. While an Apache 2.0 licensed download is still available, there is an extreme lack of clarity as to what customers who care about open source are getting and what they can depend on. For example, neither release notes nor documentation make it clear what is open source and what is proprietary. Enterprise developers may inadvertently apply a fix or enhancement to the proprietary source code. This is hard to track and govern, could lead to breach of license, and could lead to immediate termination of rights (for both proprietary free and paid). Individual code commits also increasingly contain both open source and proprietary code, making it very difficult for developers who want to only work on open source to contribute and participate. In addition, the innovation focus has shifted from furthering the open source distribution to making the proprietary distribution popular. This means that the majority of new Elasticsearch users are now, in fact, running proprietary software. We have discussed our concerns with Elastic, the maintainers of Elasticsearch, including offering to dedicate significant resources to help support a community-driven, non-intermingled version of Elasticsearch. They have made it clear that they intend to continue on their current path.
"
This is a very surprising move from AWS. In the past they haven't seemed to be willing to contribute to the OSS that they pick up and host. Even though they claim they'll contribute changes upstream, I doubt that Elastic would accept changes that are competitive with their commercial offerings. So you effectively get a fork.<p>I think this is a win for the Elastic community as a whole, but presents a real problem for Elastic the company. And that begs the question of what happens to the Elastic community if there's a real fork. And what happens if Elastic the company is very negatively impacted? Do we see a fracture of the community?<p>Looking even farther out, at this point does it make sense for any startup looking to create infrastructure software to open source it? If their project becomes successful, they'll get eaten up by the hosting providers. It makes smaller scale open source more commercially viable because you won't attract the attention of the providers that would come in a take your business.<p>Will be interesting to at least watch what early stage VC investment in open source companies looks like over the next 12-24 months. Will the open source pitch work for series A investments or will investors shy away?
> Unfortunately, we are seeing other examples where open source maintainers are muddying the waters between the open source community and the proprietary code they create to monetize the open source.<p>As I understand it, Amazon took ElasticSearch and monetized it, therefore competing directly with Elastic (the company that develops ElasticSearch). Elastic felt Amazon was taking advantage of Elastic's commitment to open source, and started developing new features under a proprietary license, but releasing them for free. The idea was to prevent their work from benefiting a competitor.<p>Basically in this blog post, Amazon is trying to make the case that they're a Good Tech Company and Elastic are the Bad Guys or something. Generally I'm all for nuance and "the truth is probably somewhere in the middle", but Elastic is the rare company that truly is committed to open source (at least at the current moment in history) and Amazon is, well, Amazon.
My personal, probably disagreeable opinion, but... The narrative that Amazon is somehow screwing over open source is getting old. I don't really think anything is 'screwing over open source', but if it's <i>anything</i>, it is the notion that we should severely restrict the licenses to ensure only the right people can monetize it. To me, the original spirit of open source is "I don't care what happens to this after I release it," like Linus releasing Linux so long ago. To that end, Amazon has certainly leveraged hundreds or thousands of FOSS projects over the years, but only a few have cried foul about it, and they happen to be startups releasing open source software.<p>I'm totally supportive of developers and their rights to release software under whatever license they feel appropriate, but if you release open source software, benefit from your software being open source, for probably years, and then someone else monetizes it... I'd argue you really ought to have seen that coming from the get-go. The license explicitly allowed it, it's not a loop hole that nobody knew about, it's absolutely intentional.<p>If people want to move over to shared source licenses like SSPL, or heck, even just close the source... that's fine too. But please don't try to call it open source or defending open source. It's defending a profit model that stopped working. Totally reasonable thing to do, but it's nothing to do with open source being corrupted.
Last year Elastic opened up the source code of their commercial X-Pack offering: <a href="https://www.elastic.co/blog/doubling-down-on-open" rel="nofollow">https://www.elastic.co/blog/doubling-down-on-open</a>. This means that these components (security, alerting, etc.) are now available in the GitHub repository, but they are covered by the proprietary Elastic license instead of the Apache 2.0 license like the rest of the software. Some of the proprietary parts can be used for free, some need a paid commercial subscription. None of them are true open source (free as in freedom), though.<p>However, this is also when Elastic started muddying the waters (to quote the AWS blog post).
Most of the new features across the Elastic stack that were added in the past couple of months (Index Lifecycle Management, APM UI, Infrastructure and Logs UI, Kibana multi-tenancy, Kibana Canvas) are <i>not</i> added to the Apache 2.0 codebase but are only available in the free-but-not-open version. These features can be used for free with the Basic subscription (no registration needed) but only under the terms of the Elastic license.<p>And this Elastic license is where AWS feels the pain. It clearly prohibits SaaS offerings:<p>> You agree not to: [..] use Elastic Software Object Code for providing time-sharing services, any software-as-a-service, service bureau services or as part of an application services provider or other service offering (collectively, "SaaS Offering") [..]<p>(from <a href="https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/6.6/licenses/ELASTIC-LICENSE.txt" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/6.6/licenses/E...</a>)<p>The license is very similar to moves that MongoDB and Redis made recently. Only Elastic is just now doubling down on adding new (and highly demanded) features to their proprietary offering.
This is an interesting new "threat" to the "open core" business model. ES makes proprietary extensions to support their FOSS core product - then a tech behemoth clones these features for their own hosted service, but makes them Free as well. Good for the consumer, but bad for the company that originally created the core FOSS technology and best for Amazon.<p>Have there been any examples of this happening before?
Definitely creates a new risk model for hybrid OSS-Enterprise software: build something attractive enough for the big players to co-opt and they might just, ah, fork you up. Now Elastic either accepts pull requests that create clean OSS versions of their pay-locked functionality, or they accept the existence of a feature-plus “Amazon Elasticsearch” fork in the market. While I give Cockcroft all the credit in the world (remembering him from his Sun days), this is still a tough spot for Elastic to be in. (More discussion in the Twitters: <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/_msw_/status/1105260461149151232" rel="nofollow">https://mobile.twitter.com/_msw_/status/1105260461149151232</a>)
As an active developer and maintainer of a cluster, I strongly disapprove of this move by AWS.<p>By forking on an earlier instance of the codebase for ES and Kibana they're not only creating an open source version of the code but also attempting a fork of the community - plugin developers, user groups, etc. It's extremely frustrating.
EDIT: If folks actively building plugins have felt pain here because of decisions by Elastic, then my view on this point changes considerably, obviously.<p>I find it very hard to believe there was no compromise to be had here between the current Elastic roadmap for their product and their previous work.<p>How is this good for users of the current tools? How does this help create better capabilities on a common platform? Will this encourage users to build businesses on elasticsearch open source elements?<p>I'm not sure where the community ends up after this, so I'm not sure I can support by using AWS' elasticsearch tools.
I run a company that offers consulting and hosted services around a 100% open core (<a href="https://geocode.earth" rel="nofollow">https://geocode.earth</a>, shameless plug).<p>As someone who has a very strong desire to continue to be able to make a living while making open source software, I've been thinking long and hard about all the possible paths to take while maintaining open-source software as a job that pays the bills enough to run at least a small business.<p>Some paths and possible outcomes are:<p>- Open-core: Make most code pure open source, and then save some good stuff for pure proprietary. The lines are not _too_ blurred here, but this can get annoying. (Elastic's X-Pack was _super_ annoying to deal with back in the 2.x days). Risks: you have to balance crippling the core versus building compelling proprietary features. You have to add additional complexity into both codebases to deal with a clean delineation. Amazon (or other bigco) can re-implement open-source replacements for your proprietary parts.<p>- Source-available: This in my mind includes any of the recent Redis Labs style licenses. Pros: more convenient from a setup perspective. Cons: Incredible legal risk for your users (compliance is harder). Uncertainty as all these licensees are new and possibly one-offs. Currently, there is a lack of goodwill around these licenses. Amazon can re-implement your entire interface (like with Mongo).<p>- All open source: Simple, clean, but Amazon can just take all your code and replace you, right?<p>It's possible to assume that all scenarios end poorly, but I really don't think so.<p>Take any famous chef. They probably have published a cookbook with recipes for many, if not all of their most popular dishes. People still eat at their restaurants for at least the following reasons:<p>- They want to experience the dish from the actual chef's establishment. Whether it's to be sure they're getting the real deal or simply for the image aspects of the experience, it's still worth it.<p>- They know that the chef is always experimenting and pushing new things that aren't _yet_ in a cookbook, and they want to try it.<p>Bringing this back to software, I am confident Elastic still has a reputation of being able to build a better Elasticsearch hosted service than AWS (in my experience, Elastic's is far superior). I also am confident that Elastic will continue to innovate using their proven experience building search products in the future, and that's a good reason to use their products or software over AWS.<p>I believe that if you want to make money in open source you should do it by having valuable experience with some particular open source software that others are willing to pay for, not by building legal barriers to others doing the same thing. That's what I plan to do for my business and I believe Elastic can and will do it too.<p>My hope is that in a few years after all these "clever" attempts to build moats around open source have proven futile, people will go back to good old-fashioned experience leading the way. But maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.
I recently decided to experiment with ES and prefer to evaluate things with Apache 2.0 licensing if available, even if I may pay for to license it at a later time. Elasticsearch Still maintains -oss suffixed docker images and builds that are true Apache 2.0. You can read more about this here: <a href="https://www.elastic.co/products/x-pack/open" rel="nofollow">https://www.elastic.co/products/x-pack/open</a><p>I jotted down instructions to run the docker containers based on a few different solutions from different places: <a href="https://gist.github.com/mcescalante/6be03751c820677cf0f15c7b864fa23a" rel="nofollow">https://gist.github.com/mcescalante/6be03751c820677cf0f15c7b...</a><p>I'm sharing this because I got the vibe from the linked post in the comments and the overall marketing of "Open Distro for ES" that Elasticsearch was 'not open anymore' and had just discovered the Apache 2.0 builds within the last week.
"The maintainers of open source projects have the responsibility of keeping the source destination open to everyone and not changing the rules midstream."<p>Since when is anybody entitled to any free software. Projects can do what they want with their code, and while free software (the Stallman kind) is nice, if projects cite you as the main reason for their change of direction, you are intellectually dishonest if you just blame them for not being willing to do volunteer work (for you) anymore.<p>This, to me, looks like an abusive "look what you made me do".
Basically Amazon screwing Elastic. Take their code and monetize it, not giving anything back. When Elastic changed their license to prevent it, Amazon forks it.<p>It's the biggest risk to open source right now. They are following the strategy of "commoditize the complementary good". Since Amazon makes money selling machine cycles, they want the software to be free.
Hosted ES by AWS is a good solution to regret later in life.<p>They have minimal tooling, poor change management, poor logging, inability to address broken state and no support what so ever for a service you paid for. I won't go back to their hosted ES.<p>Edit: spelling
For further reading, this is also mentioned in the AWS blog: <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-open-distro-for-elasticsearch/" rel="nofollow">https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-open-distro-for-elastic...</a>
I think a fork/distro of ES was bound to happen.<p>As a heavy ES user, I've looked into getting a license to access the so-called X-Pack features, most of which are very basic and should belong in the OSS distribution anyways. Lots of those features are now available as plugins, but until now there's been no overall solution for getting the missing features.<p>After an almost two hour long phone call, we kind of got the pricing in a roundabout way from the salesperson; tens of thousands of dollars per year for a small cluster. We REALLY wanted to get this, which is why we dealt with the sales process, but there was just no way to justify that to our management.
If you're looking for options in the search space:<p>- <a href="https://github.com/toshi-search/Toshi" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/toshi-search/Toshi</a><p>- <a href="https://github.com/tantivy-search/tantivy" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/tantivy-search/tantivy</a> (more like lucene)<p>- <a href="https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve</a>
Title isn't quite right: "As was the case with Java and OpenJDK, our intention is not to fork Elasticsearch, and we will be making contributions back to the Apache 2.0-licensed Elasticsearch upstream project as we develop add-on enhancements to the base open source software."
It looks like Amazon and Elastic have maneuvered themselves into a lose-lose situation.<p>Amazon has to invest into an Open-Source fork, probably won't benefit from some of the feature development Elastic will be doing, and won't get any help running their ES-as-a-Service.<p>Elastic won't see any revenue of the AWS ES-as-a-Service, and has lost a lot of goodwill with (potential) customers.<p>I think they could have reached a compromise where AWS makes sure a share of their revenue from their ES-as-a-Service ends up at Elastic, and Elastic recommends and supports ES-as-a-Service for their customers who are on AWS.<p>But these are apparently not the times for compromise, so we end up in a situation that is worse for AWS, Elastic and everyone in the wider community.
IMHO using "open" is just strategy to attract devs and companies that are looking for FOSS solutions, but in reality it's just another way to vendor lock-in. I hope i am wrong.<p>Honest question, besides not paying licenses, is there any technical reason to do this?
I like seeing a, hopefully, solid OSS implementation of security for ES. I understand the companies need to make money and pay developers, but I've never been very comfortable with them keeping the security features out of the OSS version.
I'm a long time Elasticsearch user (from before 1.0). I've also used Solr and I've built some lucene based search solutions before that as early as 2003. I'm also a customer of their hosted elastic cloud and I know several people inside that company; both former colleagues and through meetups. They do awesome stuff technically and it's a great product to use.<p>In short, I think Amazon doing this is a good thing. I've had the pleasure of using their hosted solution and I can't recommend it with a straight face. Key management features in the API are blocked and upgrades are a pain in the ass (as in, not supported). Support and documentation is minimal. It's not terrible but you get a much better bang for buck by using Elastic cloud. Self hosting is not something I recommend you do until you need to. It's a PITA and requires a non trivial amount of devops by someone who knows what they are doing to do it right. Rarely worth the price and hassle unless you need to run this at petabyte scale on custom hardware.<p>First, lets look at what this is not. This is not a fork of Elasticsearch or Kibana. If you go to the github account associated with this website, you'll see that this is simply Amazon publishing the source of plugins they use in their hosted solutions. The readme of those plugins basically instructs you to download the appropriate version of Elasticsearch from Elastic.<p>Second, I was there when Shay Banon announced the licensing changes at Elastic ON in early 2018. At the time I already thought this was a somewhat unfortunate move as it muddles the water in terms what is and isn't open source. Technically what they announced was shared source for things that were previously closed source. Which is better than nothing but not ideal. The whole thing was designed to get more people to try this out than was the case when you needed to get a license before you could play with it. It's basically a form of shareware.<p>We use Elastic Cloud, it seems all the cool stuff they talk about is mostly off limits to their basic tier users astill nd requires quite a bit of skill to get started with. I appreciate that they are trying to upsell this stuff but I seem to be doing fine with just the standard OSS features (and I know they are OSS because this is what I used before elastic cloud as well). I could switch back to self hosted and not lose much (other than convenience).<p>Third, I think the Elasticsearch ecosystem benefits from having outside contributors; especially from big corporate entities like Amazon. Their history is literally bootstrapping off Apache Lucene as a small group of developers and consultants. They employ core committers and one of the co-founders is a core committer as well (I worked with him before Elastic happened). They've been working together with the Solr people on improving Lucene for the past six years and have made some awesome improvements. Lucene sees regular contributions from academics as well. It's a healthy project and it is core to what Elasticsearch does. IMHO this is something they need to nurture and keep and something that is core to their culture.<p>The plugin ecosystem around Elasticsearch is where the action is commercially. They've built a lot of cool stuff around Elasticsearch that adds a lot of value. That too sees a lot of outside innovation. So, Amazon publishing some plugins is great. Also, given that they use it at scale, they probably have a thing or two to say about how to improve Elasticsearch and probably should be regularly creating pull requests, creating issues, etc. That's a good thing. Anything blocking that would be a bad thing<p>In short, Elasticsearch created a big mess by mixing open and closed source and people are working around them. Instead of fighting that, they should double down of being open source at their core and benefit from this rather than attempting to fight it. I'd recommend them to 1) re-create and market their community edition, 2) actively considering offering support for Amazon customers and other people using their technology but outside of their bubble (e.g. Graylog). Work with the community instead of against it. Everybody wins.
Is this some kind of AWS is trying to cleanup their reputation in ES? Their offer of ES is super weird. THe data node is only support 2 AZs, instead of 3. They also require using the IAM for authentication(you sign the request with access+secret keys) in other words, hard to simply `curl` it.<p>So if they added this, maybe they will eventually bring these into AWS ES offer, so that they can do the thing that X-Pack offer - because we cannot install plugins on AWS ES yet.
If someone is looking for a third opensource alternative to Elastic Search, I highly recommend <a href="http://vespa.ai" rel="nofollow">http://vespa.ai</a>
We migrated from ES, and it is truly next-gen compared to ES
WDYT:
Would it have been better for AWS to initiate Open Distro for ES as part of e.g. Apache Software Foundation, whose mantra is "community over code"?<p>(or if not ASF for some reason, then Eclipse or CNCF for example)
I couldn't be happier about this. We build on Elastic today - and there are several features that we've written into our codebase from scratch, that are available in commercial Elastic only. Quite frankly if there's a community that once again "open", and that we can even contribute some of our technology to with everyone benefiting - I'll be pretty thrilled.<p>In tomorrow's test I'm going to throw ~3 billion messages at Elastic 6.x and then immediately stand this up over the same database... Time to see what happens :)
This is a good project to happen, and kudos to AWS for doing this! However, like some in the thread, I suspect AWS has been building this for a while for their own product and Elastic's license change may have influenced the decision to open-source.<p>Getting a good out-of-the-box granular security has been a long overdue pain point with ElasticSearch, there have been good alternatives for the other problems it is replicating.<p>1.) ElastAlert - <a href="https://github.com/yelp/elastalert" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/yelp/elastalert</a> for alerting,
2.) ElasticSearch SQL - <a href="https://github.com/NLPchina/elasticsearch-sql" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/NLPchina/elasticsearch-sql</a> for writing SQL queries.<p>Would very much like to hear from OP why these weren't contributed to instead of creating another alternative.<p>We've been working on a similar project in Golang and now well may be as good a day to open-source and put it out there: <a href="https://github.com/appbaseio/arc" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/appbaseio/arc</a>. It's an extremely light-weight API gateway for ElasticSearch that at the core comes with an out-of-the-box security system based on users and permissions (set granular ACLs, Rate Limits, TTL) inspired from a proprietary security system we built over the past year - <a href="https://appbase.io/features/security/" rel="nofollow">https://appbase.io/features/security/</a>.
I dunno if I'd be long $ESTC at this point. Elastic took $162 million in venture funding before IPOing. In the last year their Operating Income was -$43 million. A lot of that is sales/marketing related, but at some point they need to make a profit. This open distro is certainly not going to help.<p>As someone who's worked at many big corps on Elasticsearch installs, I've been worried about them pushing away from OSS for some time. Many big corps want some of these "Enterprise" grade features Open Distro is offering, and if Elastic doesn't already have a foothold in them, I wager they'll be using this instead of paying.<p>As an aside, how come people still think these Open Source/Core commercial businesses are viable? We've seen time and again that once commercialization occurs, the OSS stuff goes right out the window. (RedHat, Docker, MongoDB, Sentry etc)
I was always surprised one of the cloud providers didn't release a cloud-native full-text search service. A lot of projects could benefit by a simple text search service. I always found Elasticsearch to be a little clunky and found myself wishing there was an alternative. While I don't like to be locked into a cloud vendor, having a simple text search service might be enough to sway me towards a particular vendor, even if it's proprietary.<p>Amazon's Elasticsearch service does simplify installation and management, but honestly I wish it were even simpler. I don't want to even think about CPU/memory sizing or the number of shards.
Amazon is forcing elastic to make money from their hosted offering, instead of their proprietary x-pack modules. Professional Services don’t scale as software do (compare AWS with Rackspace) - so I’m ignoring that income stream for now. Basically, they are trying to force Elastic into the AWS red ocean. Elastic, in response, would have to make a technology leap in order to best solve their customers problems. Examples include: Integrated data prediction, anomaly detections, clustering (online machine learning). Seamless multi region cluster deployment (with some consistency guarantee)...
'Distro' makes it sound like a linux-distribution with, in this case, Elasticsearch installed on it. From what I read on the page and on the aws blog this is not the case though?
Question, can I checkout the code from Github and build it with ./gradlew assemble as Apache License 2 or do I need to delete some modules before doing that?
My Twitter followers include a lot of Elasticsearch and Solr users. It will be interesting to see what they think of this from their POV as users...
<a href="https://twitter.com/otisg/status/1105146138921979905" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/otisg/status/1105146138921979905</a>
The cloud that creates an Itunes like solution for OSS, creating a business model for OSS and earning the respect of developers will make bank like Apple did. Am hoping for one of the cloud players to adopt this strategy.<p>Disclaimer: Views expressed above are my own and do not reflect any opinions from my employer.
I notice that ODFE (as I am trying to make the acronym a "thing") is packaged for Docker and RPM. It would be nice if they provided the plugins/extensions separately, or otherwise had build-from-source instructions.
P.s: I think people are confused. This isn't a fork? Basically AWS should have came out and said. "Hey folks we created brand spanking new OSS plugins with sepcific funxtionality for Elastic" and you can use them!
Found this perspective interesting: <a href="https://thenewstack.io/what-the-fork-amazon/" rel="nofollow">https://thenewstack.io/what-the-fork-amazon/</a>
How is elastic (the company) going to make a business going forward? I would expect that selling these enterprise add-ons (or similar ones) is a significant part of their revenue.
I see this as a net positive (<a href="https://xkcd.com/927/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/927/</a> notwithstanding): Elastic.co, imo, has iron-grip (in terms of licensing and features that it builds) on XPack and Elasticsearch. This incredible technology that rode on OSS wave is increasingly controlled by a for-profit organization that also acts like one. This is very similar to how Google dealt with numerous forks of Android by essentially moving key pieces to GooglePlayServices and other closed-source apps in addition to responding with shutting out manufacturers and SoC providers that weren't OHA signatories [0][1]. Amazon felt the burnt of that [2].<p>Apart from including/forking other community plugin projects (elasticsearch-sql, SearchGuardSSL) in open-distro [3], AWS seems to be investing to make this more "cloud-native", as well: This observation comes from PerformanceAnalyzer (released) and IndexStateManagement (request-for-comment).<p>- IndexStateManagement [4] is simply "never send a human to do a machine's job" automation of common yet frequent tasks required to keep elasticsearch humming along. If used in conjunction with AWS's/GCP's/Azure's managed-cloud offering, this feature might be an amazing sell for a lot of enterprises that want to set up things and have them running with as few dev-ops/engs as they can.<p>- PerformanceAnalyzer [5] could track multiple signals from servers running open-distro and may perform reactionary actions to either shed load, throttle requests, shift workload and so on, something similar to what MeltWater did [6].<p>[0] <a href="https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2009/12/22/google-open-when-convenient/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2009/12/22/google-open-when-convenien...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/16/amazon-set-to-launch-htc-built-smartphone" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/16/amazon-se...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19361234" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19361234</a><p>[4] <a href="https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/index-management/blob/master/RFC.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/index-manage...</a><p>[5] <a href="https://opendistro.github.io/for-elasticsearch-docs/docs/pa/reference/" rel="nofollow">https://opendistro.github.io/for-elasticsearch-docs/docs/pa/...</a><p>[6] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18413862" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18413862</a>
Found this perspective interesting around COSS vs FOSS: <a href="https://thenewstack.io/what-the-fork-amazon/" rel="nofollow">https://thenewstack.io/what-the-fork-amazon/</a>
Hot take, the future of open source is just massive companies sponsoring projects to get free dev hours.<p>You can try to fight it, but if Amazon wants your project they will either take the code or build a compatible API. There is no defense, IP rights only favour proprietary software.
Well what about enterprise support? When customers buy an enterprise solution at elastic they get support right? what would entitle them to move to this offering.
The whole Amazon takes an open source product and monetizes it almost reminds me in a way of someone getting rich off an asset flip on the unity store. Just a big, giant, corporate version.
I find it very ironic that AWS is behind this. Whenever I buy books from Amazon I am amazed at their broken search engines. Just search a topic on Amazon and then try to sort the results. LOL.
In the old days, big companies spent gazillions to buy companies when they wanted to add their software to their product lineup.<p>Amazon just takes it regards of whether or not the original developer is happy or hostile.<p>This is going to redefine open source.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
it would be of extraordinary interest to I believe many people in our industries if anybody with some production experience on the topic would like to write a short comparison "Elasticsearch vs. Solr", thank you very much for your attention!
> At AWS, we believe that maintainers of an open source project have a responsibility to ensure that the primary open source distribution remains open and free of proprietary code so that the community can build on the project freely, and the distribution does not advantage any one company over another.<p>Sections like this make me wonder if customers should demand that these announcements be delivered on video, rather than in print, so we can see whether the spokesperson can say it with a straight face.