Am I missing something or do two cloud computing services, two database systems, and a search engine have nothing to do with a game engine? Cuz this looks like a false equivalency whataboutism two-for-one combo to me.
It’s a random list for sure, but vendor lock-in can also be a problem for companies hosting their stuff in the cloud in a similar manner to what’s happening with unity.
I suppose that’s true, but then the question becomes: how many people proselytizing Godot/OSS use these services personally vs in a corporate environment where they may not have a choice? Because I’m not sure the supposed hypocrisy the meme is “joking” about actually exists.
Fallacious arguments? In the comments of my content aggregation website? I don’t believe it for a second.
well sure, but dog houses aren’t made out of waffles, anyways.
This meme is stupid. FOSS versions of all that crap also exist.
Out of that list, I like MongoDB. I just did bits in SQL before I started using it for the little python tools I’ve made for stuff.
Yeah but are you using it or are you using the closed source options?
Services aren’t source code lol
But you can’t see the code that runs those services, stores your settings, deploys your code, etc. Services are still a liability if they go away and your project depends on it
They’re a completely different liability.
While you are right about it being an issue, it is very different to rent a Vroot server and having to move the server and moving your game from engine to engine.
And I wouldn’t give shit to unity devs for choosing unity. I just don’t think hosts and engines are equal.
deleted by creator
OP…buddy…you okay? Did you hit your head or something?
Yes? What does that have to do with unity or godot?
Oh no the internet runs on computers that use “Closed Source Software” to manage the packets that flow through them! This means that if I have a website that is open source, I’m actually a hypocrite? Actually I’m not sure what the point of this comic is.
That’s why you don’t make your systems dependent on any of those tools. If Mongo goes crazy, you add an implementation to another document database, test to see if performance is good enough, and start to migrate to another database.
There’s no problem in using proprietary shit. The problem is marrying stuff you can’t rely on, building your house on land you don’t own.
That’s also one of the reasons why it isn’t good to use very unique features from any service, because once you start relying on it, you get locked, AWS may have a billion services, i would normally only use those that other providers also have.
Yup, wrappers for everything you didn’t build yourself. That way when you inevitably have to switch vendors, you can simply write a new wrapper using the same interface, minimal changes necessary
Did Mongodb change something? I’ve been using the community edition for a good long time.
Their license, the SSPL, is actually pretty fucking far from open. That being said for anyone not a platform provider it’s basically open source so you can consider it as such. You just have to deal with SSPL callouts when you do compliance reviews.
Edit: the meme says “closed source” which is patently false for Mongo
Edit: the meme says “closed source” which is patently false for Mongo
No, MongoDB is closed source, proprietary software. You might be confusing open source with source available.Edit: Actually I am wrong sorry. Closed source is not the opposite of open source. I didn’t read your comment exactly enough. MongoDB is not open source, it’s not free software, it is source available and thus not closed source. The things below are still true but don’t contradict what you said.
The SSPL is not a free software license and it is not an open source license. The OSI said so:
https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license/
It’s to the AGPL what the GPL is to LGPL: More viral. Calling it “not open source” when using it would require the likes of Amazon to open up their complete stack is kinda hare-brained.
It could reasonably be argued that it’s too viral and gods know people have been doing that with the GPL but OSI’s argument “enforces additional usage restrictions” is… well, then any copyleft is a usage restriction if you want to be consistent.
That’s why I started by saying it’s pretty far from open. I refuse to touch SSPL projects at work because they’re not open. You have rights until you want to sell something the licensor might misconstrue as theirs. Terraform’s BSL is a new iteration of this bullshit.
It used to be AGPL, now it’s SSPL.
Opensearch exists and is a fork of the last open source version of elasticsearch.
deleted by creator
MongoDB is under the Server Side Public License (SSPL) which is not an Open Source license.
Idc about open source purism personally. I’m okay with open source projects making it difficult for corporate users to make profit and contribute nothing back.
It’s open source enough for me. The code is open, contributions are accepted, forking is doable. That’s what matters.
As the OSI says in the post linked above:
This is not to say that Elastic, or any company, shouldn’t adopt whatever license is appropriate for its own business needs. That may be a proprietary license, whether closed source or with source available. […] What a company may not do is claim or imply that software under a license that has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative, much less a license that does not meet the Open Source Definition, is open source software. It’s deception, plain and simple, to claim that the software has all the benefits and promises of open source when it does not.
A lot of companies are trying to redefine what “open source” means. And regrettably, this is probably something that was inevitable with a name as open to interpretation as “open source”, but it’s unfortunate that the OSI was denied the trademark for the term. If they owned the trademark, nobody would believe projects like ElasticSearch and MongoDB are open source when they do not meet the Open Source Definition (OSD), because those companies wouldn’t be able to claim they are.
Open source was never about preventing people from making a profit. That sounds more like the original Linux license, where Linus Torvalds didn’t want money to change any hands in the process of conveying the software. I can’t imagine how much worse things would be if Linus never transitioned to a license that met the OSD. My belief is that there is nothing wrong with making money so long as the software meets the OSD. I know at least the GNU Project actively encourages people to sell free software.
If AWS was open source, you wouldn’t be protected from a similar incident. You’re primarily using them for servers and infrastructure.
AWS and Azure are services, not libraries; Elasticsearch is mostly open source; and DynamoDB, well, how many people use it again?
The one thing you can count on Godot users for is that they act exactly like Arch Linux users.
I think that’s because the software comes from a similar place. You have to fight for your freedom and it takes effort, and the people that put that effort in like to feel good about it by sharing (or showing off). It’s like gym-goers who like to show their hard-earned progress.
And then there’s the fundamental differences in core philosophy, where a lot of friction between open and closed source projects comes in. It’s warranted, but I get why it’s annoying.
Look, I might have switched to Godot if all the people recommending it weren’t so annoying about it. Effort or not, the vast majority of those people did not contribute to the software, so it wasn’t even their fight. They just adopted a weird oppression fetish into their personality and decided to make FOSS into their god.
If someone was wronged by “Big GameDev” or whatever and developed their own FOSS replacement, then good on them, I am happy to listen about it. But the large majority of these users didn’t do that, but act like they did. Just be normal, please. Being so overly annoying about it isn’t going to attract more people, existing users being annoying are going to push away potential new users.
You’re just as annoying as the people preaching Godot. Surely you see that.
People are free to continue using proprietary software, but you can’t then continue to complain when they inevitably do another shitty thing in the name of profit.
No wonder people are promoting FOSS, what else do you want to happen? I really don’t get why people are so hostile to FOSS, it’s literally for your own long-term benefit. How many more projects have to enshittify before people get it?
I am not complaining about FOSS, or even saying its bad. I am saying the people that look at FOSS as if it was their god are annoying. The people that just cannot shut up and have to shove it in your face. The people that start conversations with “I use Arch” or “Godot is the best.” Thats what I am talking about.
People are passionate about FOSS, that is not a bad thing. What is your excuse for complaining about other peoples way of expressing their passion? Is that your passion, to spread a little more negativity in the world?
Upvote for the title alone.
Except AWS runs on Linux…
So does the unity engine and that doesn’t make it any less closed source.
That’s not what I meant by “runs on Linux.” I mean the software that makes AWS servers function, behind the scenes, is Linux. You’re allowed to install whatever you want on a server if you rent a server from AWS, but the software that allows you to rent a server from them and lets you set up your own server is… Linux.
AWS servers run on an operating system that is a CentOS/RHEL flavor of Linux that has been heavily modified by Amazon for their use-case.
The vendor lock in from AWS doesn’t come from just using EC2 servers. EC2 is just linux servers, like you say. You could run them anywhere. In fact, if you’re just running AWS EC2 servers without leveraging their other features, particularly auto-scaling, you’re probably just setting money on fire. Everything EC2 offers can be done much cheaper at a different host.
The AWS lock-in comes when you expand to their other services. Route 53 DNS, Relational Database Service, Simple Email Service, etc etc. AWS offers a ton of different services that are quite useful, and they add new ones all the time. And if your company uses a bunch of them, and then realizes they need to leave AWS, doing so is incredibly painful. Which is the point.
If you hard code their services into your product, sure. But you should be abstracting away from that. Then it’s just writing new plugins instead of redesigning everything.
Vendor lock-in from a service provider is different from vendor lock-in from using proprietary software.
If you’re dumb enough to not host your shit locally and instead rely on Amazon, that’s literally your own shortsightedness that led to vendor lock in.
The first mistake anyone made was thinking putting their whole business on some other businesses private property was a good idea. Pro-tip: it’s not.
In other words, I already agree with you, but I think vendor lock-in for services is a vaslty different issue than vendor lock-in for proprietary software.
My point is that, if someone really leverages the power of AWS, it is entwined into their software stack to such an extent that it is not just a service anymore. It’s a platform. It’s the glue that keeps everything together. The lines between service and proprietary software blur real quick. It’s one of the reasons for the AGPL.
Everything in development involves risk, and products will move real slow if you don’t depend on someone for some services. But developers aren’t very good at risk management, not being reliant on a single service to butter your bread. It is very quick to bring a minimum value product to market on AWS, but the followup to that MVP needs to be moving to a more sustainable, less risky infrastructure.
All right, I agree with that take. However, I would also argue that those are choice you can make when using AWS, and while Amazon surely pushes those solutions through ads and whatnot, it’s still a choice that people can make. Yes, after they’ve made that choice, they’re fucked out of luck if they want to switch to a different service, but that’s why (in my opinion) “the cloud” was always a lie that was meant to benefit large corporations. It reduced IT overhead for small companies, but it did it, like you point out, at the expense of getting locked into the vendor-environment.
If they can’t see that in the future this will cause lock-in… once again, that’s their own shortsightedness and inability to consider the implications of using exclusively AWS servers and services.
