Comment by HEmanZ

Comment by HEmanZ 10 hours ago

What do you think an alternative is for someone who:

1. Has a technical system they think could be worth a fortune to large enterprises, containing at least a few novel insights to the industry.

2. Knows that competitors and open source alternatives could copy/implement these in a year or so if the product starts off open source.

3. Has to put food on the table and doesn’t want to give massive corporations extremely valuable software for free.

Open source has its place, but it is IMO one of the ways to give monopolies massive value for free. There are plenty of open source alternatives around for vector DBs. Do we (developers) need to give everything away to the rich

mhuffman 8 hours ago

Traditionally the most profitable approach is offering enterprise support and consulting.

Reply View 2 replies

cluckindan 8 hours ago

Enterprises are so very fond of choosing novel open source technologies, too!
(not)

Reply View | 1 reply
- gloomyday 7 hours ago
  
  I have been working for 4 years with "enterprise" software, and I feel like the whole field is some kind of collective insanity.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

OutOfHere 7 hours ago

Let's say the best open source product has a feature score of 70/100, and the best closed source product has a feature score of 85/100, and this is me being generous with the latter. The issue is that just by being closed source, it immediately loses 20/100, bringing its score to 65/100, which is below the open offering. A closed source product carries substantial risk if the company behind it were to stop maintaining it, which is why the adjustment by -20 applies.

Secondly, as I know, the blocker with approximate neighbor search is often not insertion, but search. And if this search was worth a fortune to me, I'd simply embarrassingly parallelize it on CPUs or on GPUs.

Reply View 0 replies