It'll be hard to position this against Sentry. Sentry's a joy to use and their performance product is so helpful in debugging performance issues
replies(1):
Compare https://github.com/getsentry/self-hosted/blob/9.1.2/docker-c... with https://github.com/getsentry/self-hosted/blob/24.4.2/docker-... for what life used to be like for running Sentry on-prem. It was awesome
It would take a ton of work to dig up the actual memory and CPU requirements of each one, but rest assured they're not zero, so every one of those services eats ram and requires TLC when, not if, they shit themselves. So, more parts == more headaches with all other things being equal
Then, I deeply appreciate that there are a whole spectrum of reactions to the various licensing schemes in use nowadays, and a bunch of folks don't care. I care, though, because I have gotten immense value from open source projects, and have contributed changes back to quite a few. It has been my life experience that many of those "source available" licenses usually are very hostile toward making local real builds and if I can't build it to match how prod goes, then I can't test my fixes in my environment and then I can't contribute the PR with any faith
Live and die on your hill. We'll keep focusing on building our product - which requires us to be able to be able to pay developers for the enormous amount of time it takes them.
I ordinarily would have just ignored your troll comment, but this was so incredibly short sighted that you were obviously wanting some sparks so now you'll get them. Sentry didn't start life with a source available license, even though the threat model to the business was exactly the same at that time: the cloud for sure existed, I know because I ran Sentry self-hosted upon it. And your cited enormous amount of time and money to pay developers didn't spontaneously spring into being 6 months ago, either. So, the tone that was set was that Sentry was open source with all the rights and privileges that came with it. Until someone got butthurt and decided they needed not just one source available license but then their own source available license just to ensure lawyers never go hungry
> Live and die on your hill.
You, too. Enjoy your mansions and yachts from all the ontold riches that your new licensing scheme will surely bring you in exchange for lighting fire to any trust gained
So lets talk about the facts, because the paint a pretty clear narrative, rather tha one that people would prefer to believe.
1. I built most of Sentry (back then), and while we had a few contributions here and there, it was almost exclusively my time, or future employees times. So no community contribution concerns.
2. We relicensed because of a new threat, not one that existed 16 years ago when I started the project. That threat was GitLab, who was openly trying to commercialize Sentry. They never once contributed to the project, nor did they want to contribute back as part of that strategy. I know this to be true because I asked them to.
3. We built the FSL because the BUSL did not create a strong enough conviction to our values - of which we repeatedly have put words into action on. We wanted to cement those values, and make it easier for people who had our same concerns, but also wanted to create more open source, to be able to achieve that _without_ undue risk or legal fees.
There is a huge difference in the way Sentry operates, and the way some of these other organizations have chosen to relicense (or in some cases, legitimately rug pull).
So you can say what you will, but we've always been straight forward with our beliefs, and talk about these things publicly all the time. I'm not here to convince you of changing your beliefs, but I will never sit idly when people spread false information, especially about us.