Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by tibbydudeza on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @09:49AM (#25833878)

Amazon is the new Microsoft.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by nautilus12 on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @09:58AM (#25833983)

I was told many of the more predatory players from Microsoft left to join Microsoft in the last few years. I need to look into this though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by jbarberu on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @10:13AM (#25834145)

"...players from Microsoft left to join Microsoft in...", wat?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by richardARPANET on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @09:53AM (#25833929)

*Oracle

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by jnsaff2 on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @10:00AM (#25833997)

I've been at the receiving end of Elastics selling tactics and pricing. Elastic is the new Oracle was my conclusion. IIRC the pricing was along the lines of $12k per CPU Core or GB of RAM. Straight from the nineties.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by aprdm on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @10:12AM (#25834128)

In my experience it was that by Node regardless of how many cpus or ram the node had.

Regardless very expensive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon: Not OK – Why we had to change Elastic licensing by wg0 on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @10:35AM (#25834426)

And Mongo is something similar as well. Just running single instance (on infrastructure that you pay for) might cost about 3k or more per month.

[ Parent | on HN ]