zeeg

Did you consider looking to see what they actually already do? There's a reason this works.

It’s not useful if it’s never read by agents - that’s the premise of the statement.

The issue is these are mostly academic points of view. Sentry’s model on the FSL (and previously the BUSL) has shown to be working just fine at scale.

Whereas, for example, trademark protections have shown to fail easily.

So people can argue it doesn’t work, but so far we only have evidence to the contrary and Sentry is quite successful.

Clearly this is bait but we have done nothing but be supportive of small accounts.

It’s still $29, we still are extremely generous on forgiveness and sponsorships, and we still prioritize the long tail.

70% of our business is smb/mm, and if you knew anything about us you wouldn’t make the statement you said above.

If we have done something to show otherwise I would love to see it so we can address it.

Just want to say, absolutely this. Its an awfully confusing way to say: "if you make money, compile your own binaries or pay us". Have a feeling the confusion and FUD it causes will create more harm than good unfortunately.

No, its complicated and scales to servicing every customer in the world. Thats not the same thing.

Doesnt mean the complaints about self-hosted arent valid, but "literally has to scale to the most insane volumes of data" and "is not good software" are two different things.

We're building a cloud service at the end of the day - its a lot easier to optimize a multi-tenant install than it is a single-tenant install, and that complexity shows up in the self-hosted repo. Can't really avoid it.

If you - or anyone reading this - ever ends up in a situation where we came off as aggressive send me a direct email and I will take care of it. This is not something we believe in at Sentry, and while you cant manage everything, its important to us that we never become "of those companies" like so many other successful companies become.

david at sentry.io

Any chance you can link me to the ticket?

Feel free to email - david at sentry

Define large workload.

Sentry runs large workloads and Postgres isn't a bottleneck. We have also never employed a DBA. Most users never need to shard their database, and at most can just partition datasets by tables for _extremely_ high volume workloads.

You just have to consider architecture and optimize things that are slow, just like any other software. Nothing is free at the end of the day, and nothing else gives you the flexibility that Postgres does, particularly these days with its growing high value extensions.

When you offer a subset of the product as open, and a subset as not open, its not open source. Pretty simple math for me.

This is not a comment on "which" OSI license they used for the open part, but I will not support people calling Open Core broadly Open Source, as its not.

This is the problem with the definition. If the product is trurly open source, call it that. If its not, thats ok, but don't. Core has no real definition.

I definitely would never call GitLab Open Source. I can't comment as much on the others. Sidekiq is actually how I think the world should work: its open source, and then they sell Sidekiq Pro. One is Open Source, one isnt. The issue is most people don't operate that way.

GitLab Community Edition is Open Source, GitLab is not. Cal.com isn't open source, but is the Cal product? I'm not sure. Given I started Sentry I can at least use it as an analogy. Early days Sentry was open source, but getsentry.com was not (which was our billing infra). No one would have called Sentry Open Core, because no part of "Sentry" was closed source. That's not true for most Open Core.