The real question isn't "can FB be hosted on AWS?", it's "why isn't FB competing with AWS?" because what they've already got is much better for the range of applications that they deploy.
The latter is just a necessary tool. But, you're not going to threaten FB 's mission by simply building out an identical (or even superior) infrastructure. So, there's virtually zero-risk to them in open-sourcing it.
(Not that I'm criticizing Facebook. Open-sourcing code is hard -- see Borg.)
The point was that yes, Open Compute exists, but its existence is only partially relevant when one claims that Facebook has opened their "infrastructure." The two sentences in GP are basically what I'm responding to -- mainly the verbatim "FB open sourced their infrastructure" -- and I guess the implied context of Facebook infrastructure was lost when I said "nothing to run on it," sorry. I meant Facebook code. So this is clear: Open Compute is good, and I'm appreciative of Facebook, just want to make sure we understand what "open infrastructure" means and its limitations in this case.
It's incredibly permissive (nearly the same as the MIT license), and does not allow for the concept of having it "revoked".
Facebook is a (among many other things) a software company, and software companies do warfare with patents. It might be their least favorite weapon, one they have yet to use - but "unthinkable" can only refer to your beliefs -- it is actually extremely thinkable, even if at this point in time improbable.
I'm really concerned about zstd working its way into some future de-facto standard file format, though - I think the name "zstd" is marketing genius (of the evil kind).
(1) can afford to roll your own framework
(2) can afford the lawyers required to point out that this doesn't hold water
How does this affect libraries like preact?
Any confusion that arises from deciding to depart from well-understood licenses is fairly laid at their door, in my view.
That's true; however,
> React isn't known to be patent-encumbered.
That's a useless assertion. Many patents only become known once the lawsuits start. Facebook has amassed a patent portfolio, and patents are a legal instrument that can only be used offensively.
Remember, the claim I was disputing was that "only a fool will use reactjs" because the patent license is conditional. All I'm saying is that I don't see any reason to be more concerned about React than, say, Angular.
Would you believe that Apple today would use react in their products?
What would Steve Jobs say to someone who suggests using react in apple software/saas?
downvoting on HN is being abused here, just because someone is a big fan of reactjs and disagrees with me, they automatically downvote a valid opinion based on facts.
see for yourself, from react patent clause
"The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,"
If you are in doubt, the license that could terminate is just the patent grant. The copyright license would remain in effect.
The TL;DR is: "That is just a patent license, and most OSS doesn't even include a patent license at all, so it seems weird to be super-concerned in this case in particular."
here's the issue when picking reactjs vs others (like vuejs)
Choice A. by picking reactjs I'm in a clear violation of FB patents, but I'm covered as long I don't sue FB.
Choice B. by picking others (like vuejs), I may or may not be violating FB patents, (virtualDOM has some prior art, as some people claim)
why it's so hard for people to understand that "May or Maynot" is a better choice of "definitely" violating FB patents in case I need to sue FB if they are killing my business by copying my patents.
I know that suing for patents is not best business model. But, having that weapon (even defensively) is better than not having one.
still people downvote for gray areas?
> Choice A. by picking reactjs I'm in a clear violation of FB patents
Please tell us what Facebook patents one is "violating" by using React.
your argument of where are the FB patents on react is an example of your naivety
my position all along has been, using other libs than react is LESS likely to violate FB patents, and thus gives more freedom to compete with FB. if that's your definition of load-of-crap, well, that's not my definition.
Their focus should be solely on what is going to likely end up being one of the three or four greatest money producing machines in world history (of those owned by a traditional corporation that is).
Cloud computing profits are - and will remain - a joke compared to the $20 billion in net income they'll yield in just a few more years from what they're already doing. Their focus should remain fairly narrow, they're a mere 13 years in at this point. Diving into cloud computing would be making the same exact mistake that Microsoft made with Bing, and that Google made with all their laughable social attempts, and so on. Facebook would split the market further and likely still end up #2 or #3 at best. Their best engineering talent should be solely focused on the golden goose social monopoly, which nobody else has and nobody else can compete with.
I think the market for cloud computing is very, very large.
Consider that it's a composite of "all server hardware vended or leased" and "a significant fraction of middleware and server software vended".
Microsoft are in it because they follow their existing rivers of gold as they shift. Google are in it because they desperately need a second river of gold to allow them to survive unexpected collapses in advertising revenue.
Business are different.
Margins also means more vulnerable.
Amazon doesn't like margins. Andy Jessy routinely mock "the old guards"' obsession with margins.
The possibility that fb is Suddenly dying because of some new competitor probably is 10* of Amazon. Just random statement, you get the idea.
As for siganifance, cloud computing is much bigger, it runs the actual computing that produce things that is more valuable than ads. This is in general sense, I do not want to judge their social impact.
Companies don't "produce money", that would just devalue currency.
I gusss you had a good go at making it sound cool.
This. When they bought Parse I thought for sure they would get into the same business as AWS / Azure / etc but then they phased it out. Their have so much network infrastructure I thought for sure they would want to offer such services and yet they still have not.
I'm starting to think they won't ever get into the same business.
Also to recognize: Amazon is a store, not an application. It doesn't need specialized hardware or whatever. Its customers care much more about package delivery speed / cost, etc than whatever hardware is running in the background. So it can box the same generic web servers it uses and sell them at scale. Facebook is entirely digital. It needs to specialize everything hardware-wise in order to stay ahead. The things it optimizes for, in terms of hardware, likely has no relevance to 99.9999% of basic CRUD apps out there. So they stick to what they do best. Their own platform.
A naive guess would be that providing services for users you don't control is harder than for users you do control.