←back to thread

672 points LexSiga | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mattbee ◴[] No.45667259[source]
They abandoned documentation (edit: for the open source codebase) a couple of weeks ago - that seems more significant.

From their Slack on Oct 10:

"The documentation sites at docs.min.io/community have been pulled of this morning and will redirect to the equivalent AIStor documentation where possible". [emphasis mine]

The minio/docs repository hasn't been updated in 2 weeks now, and the implication is that isn't going to be.

Even when I set up a minio cluster this February, it was both impressively easy and hard in a few small aspects. The most crucial installation tips - around 100Gb networking, Linux kernel tunables and fault-finding - were hung off comments on their github, talking about files that were deleted from the repository years ago.

I've built a cluster for a client that's being expanded to ≈100PB this year. The price of support comes in at at slightly less than the equivalent amount of S3 storage (not including the actual hosting costs!). The value of it just isn't that high to my client - so I guess we're just coasting on what we can get now, and will have to see what real community might form around the source.

I'm not a free software die-hard so I'm grateful for the work minio have put into the world, and the business it's enabling. But it seems super-clear they're stopping those contributions, and I'd bet the final open source release will happen in the next year.

If anyone else is hosting with minio & can't afford the support either :) please drop me a line and maybe we can get something going.

replies(6): >>45668446 #>>45668529 #>>45668617 #>>45670374 #>>45670759 #>>45672247 #
jamespo ◴[] No.45668617[source]
With 100PB clusters being built and not a cent going to them, you can see why minio has gone this route. I wonder if they will be "valkeyed"? Not by AWS presumably.
replies(5): >>45668679 #>>45668757 #>>45669902 #>>45671591 #>>45671944 #
nilamo ◴[] No.45668757[source]
That's a strange mindset, IMO. I'd be pissed if I had to pay $0.10 every time I turned a rachet, and it's weird to expect companies to have usage-based monetization on the tools they've made for others.
replies(3): >>45668851 #>>45669006 #>>45672397 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.45672397[source]
An analogy to making a physical tool doesn’t really work because we have to basically describe what software is in terms of exceptions to the analogy.

If I had a ratchet that, every time I turned it, I had to pay $.1, but I’d gotten it for free, but it was basically free to replicate, but the person who designed it did have to spend some significant work on R&D for the thing… I have no idea how I’d price that or how I’d feel.

replies(1): >>45675084 #
cyanydeez ◴[] No.45675084[source]
oh you really butchered that metaphor.

The ratchet isn't what's getting paid in the metaphor, it's the person turning it.

There's always a time-sink cost to a public project.

Anyway, there's definitely a public good argument to turn certain software projects into utilities.

replies(1): >>45677460 #
1. bee_rider ◴[] No.45677460[source]
I don’t think that’s what they were going for. They said “ I'd be pissed if I had to pay $0.10 every time I turned a rachet” so the person turning the ratchet is the one paying. Who they pay to is unknown.