I lost interest in the author’s argument at that point. They’re upset because someone is going to give a better offer than half a mil a year for the same product. And they’re saying, “think of the OSS!” The same OSS they’re exploiting to charge half a mil. How much of that money does the OSS see? Do they get proper support and maintenance?
Azure is a formidable competitor but a slow moving beast. They should be well geared towards innovation and not depending on their... yes... half a mil price tier. The fact that’s written on paper and not a dedicated sales/VP call is crazy.
It sounds like they need to find something unique. Since every cloud provider is moving this direction.
They're not exploiting the model to charge money for it.
I know Octopus Deploy uses proprietary code.
But if you're going to complain about the model, at least know what the model is. It's not about the amount of money you must pay to obtain a copy.
That's why they asked "How much of that money does the OSS see?"
If it's getting a significant chunk, then things are great.
If all the money is going to the proprietary part, then they have no high ground over Microsoft.
Nobody is complaining about money charged for OSS support and development.
- Octopus Deploy, for the record, is awesome. But it became extremely overpriced in 2018, to the point I wouldn't reccomend it.
- OTOH, I will point out that since the various Release management bits were tossed out by Microsoft, it seems like that's around when FAKE's deployment module started getting ignored. For Ref, FAKE is an OSS Build tool (like MAKE but F# DSL). It used to have a pretty slick remote deployment module, but around 2016-2017 or so they decided there were too many other options out there to be worth continuing development on.
10 targets - free
25 targets - $2300/year
50 targets - $4500/year
100 targets - $8800/year
200 targets - $16800/year
400 targets - $32000/year
500 targets - $39000/year
.
.
.
5000 targets - $290000/year
inf targets - $420000/year
On another note, Azure Devops has excellent support for AWS. It's better than Amazon's native solutions.
Instead, he is complaining that Microsoft is competing with his own proprietary, commercial offering. I'm not sure why he keeps pushing the narrative that this is bad for OSS, when the only two projects mentioned aren't.
Full Disclosure - I worked in the Azure DevOps org for a long time, and several of his assertions about Microsoft's auto-defacto status for developer tools and services aren't true, or at least weren't true during the time this article was set in (2010-2015).