Discussion

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

garrettjoecox: "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain"

ksajadi: Complete coincidence but today I was looking for an AWS mock for E2E tests. Not the whole AWS footprint but just a few services and looked at LocalStack for the first time.It took Claude to put together a service (with web interface and everything) for those 2 services 15 mins.I’m not claiming my experience is translated universally but perhaps if your core competency is something like LocalStack you need to think about alternative business ideas.

autism-kills: What the fuck are your talking about, kid?

iaaan: I evangelized localstack at my company a while back, but as we integrated it deeper into our CI test runs we started running into more and more things they don't support, and it feels impossible to get any attention from their support/devs despite being paying customers.Their Cloud Pod and ephemeral instance features in particular feel pretty half-baked and not very useful at the moment.Fun tangent: it's pretty easy to write a crack for the pro version; we actually used that for about a month as a pilot to confirm that it would do what we needed it to.

matt_callmann: What are the alternatives? I primarily used it for S3 and SQS emulation.

kadoban: I haven't evaluated it deeply yet, but I saw https://github.com/hectorvent/floci

cyberax: For S3 emulation, I'm using rustfs. It's very compact and fast to run, and you can just start it with `docker run` inside tests if you don't want to set up a full integration test harness.I used an SQS-on-top-of-Redis emulation before, but I can't recommended it now (no updates for 6 years).

tecleandor: They still have linked their OpenCollective account, where they have raised $10K and still have a balance of $5K. [0]It's not a lot in the great scheme of things, but, have they been using a platform that's seemingly built for communities and open source to bootstrap their business?Because this is not a 'open core' situation. They just closed the repo and ran away. If they had that idea all along, I feel like it hasn't be very, let's say, ethical.-- 0: https://opencollective.com/localstack#category-ABOUT

luis_cho: I am about to test this one http://docs.getmoto.org/en/latest/index.html

pfix: I've fiddled around with https://docs.getmoto.org/en/latest/docs/server_mode.htmlIt didn't support the one thing I wanted but it was so easy to find the right place in the code, I was happy. Never got to continue it though or turn it into a PR

stanac: So is local stack dead? Is this situation the lesser evil? Or is it not dead and we will see a villain rise?

atls: It's not a complete replacement, but if you're in a Python ecosystem, you might find Moto to be of interest.https://github.com/getmoto/moto

jayofdoom: More reason to run your infrastructure using open source software in your own datacenter. OpenStack has been around for closing in on two decades, running clouds and being mostly governance-drama-free.It's not surprising that a proprietary ecosystem built on open source software locked up behind a gate doesn't make a worthwhile ecosystem for building open source tooling against.

armchairhacker: “Open core” is when part of the product is open-source and part is private.Was a significant part of the product private before this announcement?If not, there’s nothing stopping someone from launching a competitor, or forking the repo and keeping it FOSS.

strickjb9: MinIO is a drop in replacement for S3. I plan on switching to this as soon as I can. For now, I just pinned localstack to 4.14.0

zanecodes: >MinIOI have some bad news for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47000041

watermelon0: RustFS is a good and simple-to-usr alternative for MinIO.

jzelinskie: An emulator for integration testing against the major cloud providers seems like it should:1. be table-stakes for a SDK from the cloud providers themselves2. have the obvious home in a foundation like the CNCF; how else could you be "cloud native" afterall?

hungryhobbit: Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!?They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant.Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why aren't you complaining about how "unethical" they are?

imiric: How can people still not understand that OSS can be abused?It doesn't matter that the previous code is still available. Nobody can technically delete it from the internet, so that's hardly something they did "right".The original maintainers are gone, and users will have to rely on someone else to pick up the work, or maintain it themselves. All of this creates friction, and fragments the community.And are you not familiar with the concept of OSS rugpulls? The idea that a company uses OSS as a marketing tool, and then when they deem it's not profitable enough, they start cutting corners, prioritizing their commercial product, or, as in this case, shutting down the OSS project altogether. None of this is being a "textbook good participant".> Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why aren't you complaining about how "unethical" they are?Frankly, there are many companies with proprietary products that behave more ethically and have more respect for their users than this. The fact that a project is released as OSS doesn't make it inherently better. Seeing OSS as a "free gift" is a terrible way of looking at it.

inglor: First minio and then localstack, as an open source maintainer I find that abandoning their community is bad faith. I totally get wanting to monetize but removing the free product entirely feels like such a betrayel.Luckily, I've been vibing with Devin since this started having it build a cleanbox emulator on top of real s3 tuned for my specific use case. It's a lot less general but it's much faster and easy to add the sort of assertions I need in it. It's no localstack but for my limited use case it works.

redwood: I too was excited about the idea originally but then started realizing that they will have an increasingly untenable service area to try and maintain and mimic and it was just never going to work out.

cyanydeez: It does seem like LLMs might make that a real proposition; of course, after these commercial enterprises steal copyright, copyleft and open source code, and the tooling gets good enough to download their cars, a new legion of DMCA lawyers and lobbies will be unleashed.Prep yourself though for that napster bloom, it'll be here shortly.

inetknght: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceYou might want to get your arguments in order. In one sentence you're calling OSS rugpulls a problem, and then in another you're claiming that proprietary products behave more ethically.So which is it? Is it less-ethical to have provided software as open source, and then later become a proprietary product? Why? I see having source code, even for an old/unmaintained product be strictly superior to having never provided the source code no matter how much "respect" the company has for their users today.

henriks: at least some parts of localstack seemed to be built on moto, based on a brief look at some point

armchairhacker: > It doesn't matter that the previous code is still available…The original maintainers are gone, and users will have to rely on someone else to pick up the work, or maintain it themselves.It does matter, popular products have been forked or the open-source component was reused. E.g. Terraform and OpenTofu, Redis and Redict, Docker and Colima (partly MinIO and RustFS; the latter is a full rewrite, but since the former was FOSS and it’s a “drop-in binary replacement”, I’m sure they looked at the code for reference…)Although this specific product may be mostly closed source (they’ve had commercial addons before the announcement). In that case, the problem was thinking it was open in the first place.

jalalx: So basically businesses should go bankrupt because making money is "unethical"

obsidianbases1: There's going to be a lot of complaints about open-source restricting access.It's going to keep happening because it just doesn't make sense for a lot of previous business models that supported and open-source project, something that was seen recently with tailwind.In one of my projects, one that remains source-available, I had encountered an "open-source justice warrior" that made it their mission to smear the project because of the switch, grasping at straws to do everything they could to paint my intentions as malicious.It's really too bad, and will only hurt the availability of free alternatives if one cannot provide the source under a "just don't commercially compete with the paid version of the product" license without getting branded as a scamming cash grabber

drnick1: Source available with various arbitrary restriction is non-free software. What the "open source warriors" take exception to is presenting a project as "open source" or "free" when in reality it is not.

imiric: You might want to think about my argument a bit more.> Is it less-ethical to have provided software as open source, and then later become a proprietary product? Why?Because usually these companies use OSS as a marketing gimmick, not because they believe in it, or want to contribute to a public good. So, yes, this dishonesty is user hostile, and some companies with proprietary products do have more respect for their users. The freedoms provided by free software are a value add on top of essential values that any developer/company should have for the users of their software. OSS projects are not inherently better simply because the code is free to use, share, and modify.To be fair, I don't think a developer/company should be forced to maintain an OSS project indefinitely. Priorities change, life happens. But being a good OSS steward means making this transition gradually, trying to find a new maintainer, etc., to avoid impacting your existing user base. Archiving the project and demanding payment is the epitome of hostile behavior.