cinericius

Sad to see that they don't seem to have made it commercially viable. My hope is that the codebase will find a second life now that it is open source.

Looking at Dane's career history on LinkedIn, it appears that he has only ever been in product and some variety of manager, and his degree is in 'Engineering Management System'. It's an odd choice given that the previous two CTOs (Lee and John) were extremely technical and how core technology is to Cloudflare.

As with any organisation where the CTO is not technical, there will be someone who the 'CTO' has to ask to understand technical situations. In my opinion, that person being asked is the real CTO, for any given situation.

Is it hard to pull off? Give people a cut of the revenue from new paying customers who first visit by clicking their referral link. Everyone else does the work for you, but you lose control of the brand as people who only care about making a quick buck use your name to spam low-quality videos and medium articles.

I argue that the natural winner-take-all dynamics of the marketplace are not beneficial to the the mission of free and open source software. In fact, having no safeguard against large organisations making money this way is actually hugely detrimental to the mission by enabling these companies to ensnare unsuspecting users in a web of both their own proprietary software as well as all that free and open source software has to offer.

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is there is a strong feeling that AGPL can be roughly ignored if a service provider provides some level of indirection (e.g. a proxy) between the user and the software. Then, the software is somehow not being accessed over a network and thus they are not required to release the source.

As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source, and they'll get very upset at you if you claim it is.

I'd like to see some recognition from this crowd of the "free-ride competition" problem as this author puts it. What Herman is doing is a service to us all, and we should find a term (better than 'source-available', which is cold and doesn't capture community projects accurately) that people can promote themselves under without much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

EDIT from a comment in a thread way down, that summarises my point:

I argue that the natural winner-take-all dynamics of the marketplace are not beneficial to the the mission of free and open source software. In fact, having no safeguard against large organisations making money this way is actually hugely detrimental to the mission by enabling these companies to ensnare unsuspecting users in a web of both their own proprietary software as well as all that free and open source software has to offer.

Your GitHub profile is stellar, I can't imagine interviewers see one like yours very often.

Having problems with receiving push-related webhooks as well.

If it did exist, there's some delicious irony in an original paper on replicating data in a highly-available manner being lost.

Since the author mentions at the end that they were motivated to write and publish this as a part of a writing group, I'd like to say that this was a very pleasant read. Tightly-scoped but insightful and informative!

This is barely ever the case anymore but the quality can be very high. Especially if the people who are eligible to receive it is restricted. If you take the view that the value of standing out and snagging a top student is somewhere in the 6-7 figures, spending $100 a head on swag isn't at all unreasonable - most companies just don't see it that way.

> You seem to be saying that the lack of focus is caused by the perception of a permanent easy revenue stream. But I think the causation is actually the reverse of that. The lack of focus is more like a breadth first search for additional sustainable revenue streams undertaken because they know the golden goose can't lay eggs forever.

I think the difference is urgency. They probably do know that the golden eggs will stop coming at some point, but they don't believe it'll happen for a long while. Perhaps as a consequence of this, they very rarely commit to projects in a life-or-death way. At this point it's a HN trope to state this, but I do believe the reputational damage done by this lack of commitment to any of its fledgling projects is doing massive harm to Google's ability to find new revenue streams.