←back to thread

275 points pabs3 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cycomanic ◴[] No.45152264[source]
>Elasticsearch contributors were Elastic employees; that, unsurprisingly, did not change afterward. OpenSearch started with no strong contributor base, so had to build its community from scratch. As a result, the project has been dominated by Amazon contributors ever since

So in a way the "rug pull" achieved what it wanted, amazon is now contributing to development.

I think discussing these "rug pulls" without discussing the destructive habit of many large companies to only profit without giving back misses the mark. Any community where there is a large imbalance between the ones doing the work and the ones profiting will over the long run become unstable.

replies(3): >>45152513 #>>45153433 #>>45154145 #
1. thayne ◴[] No.45153433[source]
It didn't achieve what Elastic wanted. It didn't lead to more people paying for Elastic licenses, it lead to users switching from Elasticsearch to a fork. And they eventually backpedaled and relicensed again under the AGPL.

Now, it might be better for the Open/elasticsearch ecosystem, because AWS is contributing more, and possibly the competition drives both Opensearch and Elasticsearch to be better. But on the other hand, there is now a split between two incompatible products, and Elastic has certainly lost some trust.

replies(1): >>45155078 #
2. dwood_dev ◴[] No.45155078[source]
Elastic might be fine in the long run. But everyone I know(sample size <20 orgs) migrated to OpenSearch and never looked back. They were never interested in running Elastic in a separate cloud or running it themselves, and that's what a lot of these DbaaS providers have to overcome.

It's already annoying to create your first terraform module for a new AWS managed service, but they then want the users to have the extra complexity of VPC peering/privatelink/vpn and then manage that lifecycle as well.