The discrete number of cows being born is theoretically fine-grained enough to actually respond to 2–3 vegans yielding one fewer cow. It's unlikely on a one-year time scale, but one cow only goes so far.
Even a thousand AI objectors aren't going to limit the demand for a data center, in no small part because these investments are only partially driven by current demand and are significantly driven by expectation of future demand. And they're really not going to lead to smaller data centers either because if you're building a data center in the first place you're going to spec it out for future demand.
Regardless, I think in both cases it's important to be realistic about the actual impact that one person has. If that number is disappointingly small, that serves as signal that your conscientious objection isn't making the industry you're objecting to as uncomfortable as you would like to think. It may still be worth objecting for your own sense of self, or maybe it serves as an invitation to evangelize your position more, but either way there's not much value to measuring things in a way that gives you an illusion of greater impact than you actually have.
Game changer feels a bit strong. This is a new entry in a field that's already pretty crowded with open source tooling that's already available to anyone with the time and desire to wire it all up. It's likely that they execute this better than the community-run projects have so far and make it more approachable and Enterprise friendly, but just for reference I have most of the features that they've listed here already set up on my desktop at home with Ollama, Open WebUI, and a collection of small hand-rolled apps that plug into them. I can't run very big models on mine, obviously, but if I were an Enterprise I would.
The key thing they'd need to nail to make this better than what's already out there is the integrations. If they can make it seamless to integrate with all the key third-party enterprise systems then they'll have something strong here, otherwise it's not obvious how much they're adding over Open WebUI, LibreChat, and the other self-hosted AI agent tooling that's already available.
Cursor just lost access to the extension marketplace and key proprietary plugins that they were using against Microsoft's terms, Windsurf has been eating a chunk of their mindshare, and Copilot is catching up.
That's three good reasons to believe that lots of people will be cancelling in the next months unless something changes.
That's not actually how unseating an incumbent works. The incumbent can adapt to the threat for quite a while if they act on it, they just have to not be Blockbuster. Copilot is showing every sign of making up ground feature-wise, which is bad news for the runners up.
Define losing? My company pays for Copilot but not for Cursor, and it's not at all clear to me that we're the exception rather than the norm. What numbers and data are you working with?
> Looking for a moat in the technology is always a bit of a trap - it’s in the traction, the brand awareness, the user data etc.
Traction, brand awareness, and user data do not favor Windsurf over GitHub Copilot. The few of us who follow all the new developments are aware that Windsurf has been roughly leading the pack in terms of capabilities, but do not underestimate the power of being bundled into both VS Code and GitHub by default. Everyone else is an upstart by comparison and needs some form of edge to make up for it, and without a moat it will be very hard for them to maintain their edge long enough to beat GitHub's dominance.
Part of what you're missing is that OpenAI needs to justify its own overinflated valuation. They raise money on the premise that an AI-native company can and will outcompete giant established players, so lowballing Windsurf would run counter to the narrative they're selling to their own investors.
VS Code is shipping agentic coding in the form of updates to GitHub Copilot. I haven't used it extensively yet since they added agent mode, but it's obvious that they're gunning for this market hard, and if I were into VS Code I would not personally choose to lose the ecosystem for marginally better agent mode.
The next step for Cursor and Windsurf both is that they need to work together to provide an answer for what it means to be a VS Code fork in the new era where Microsoft is trying to strangle the forks. If they're not already they should be teaming up with each other and with the VSCodium team and with the Open VSX marketplace.
Microsoft is an existential threat to their model here, but with the money they each have coming in they together have the opportunity to make the whole ecosystem better by building out viable infrastructure for all VS Code forks, if they can cooperate.
If it acquired those customers in an environment where Microsoft was not enforcing their marketplace terms it very much does matter if they have a plan for supporting plugins in the future.
Are Cursor and Windsurf going to ask plugin devs to push to their own plugin stores in addition to VS Code's? Will they rally jointly behind a single open store? They need to have an answer to Microsoft here, and for the good of the ecosystem I hope they do have an answer, but customers will flee quickly if they lose access to all the proprietary plugins and to the broader ecosystem.
Yeah, the whole "they give nothing back" line might be the worst part of the PR around these changes. It's obvious to anyone familiar with the ecosystem that it's not true, which damages the credibility of Redis's argument in the eyes of the people who matter most.
> The reason it's viewed as bad is because that behavior undermines the community at large. Participants need to contribute back proportional to their benefit when realistically able lest the community decline over time.
Why? No one has been able to articulate this for me. Why does Amazon using the software cause the community to decline? Doesn't it make the software more popular with broader reach?
When you give software away for free, you've given it away for free. You're producing it with the intention of it being used. Why does that suddenly become a problem when it gets used on a large scale?
Corporations are collections of humans. There are certain ways in which extending human rights to corporations a mistake, but allowing them to use free software isn't one of them: either the individuals in the company are able to use the software or they are not, and if they are not then the software is not free.
This is a line that gets thrown around very casually, but every assessment I've heard says that the big dogs are quite prolific contributors to these projects.
> capturing the lion's share of the enterprise value?
Ah, here's the Matt Mullenweg logic creeping in again [0]! This is basically his taunt towards DHH (though at least you're using it to cry foul rather than tease!): "although he has invented about half a trillion dollars worth of good ideas, most of the value has been captured by others."
And this is where I think most of this aggression towards cloud providers is actually coming from: a significant number of these companies have bought into the idea that they're a failure if they fail to capture the majority of the value from their Open Source project. Which is understandable when you make a VC-funded business out of it, but makes no sense given that FOSS has always been about advancing the collective good, not raking it in.
Not a religion, but a term with a specific meaning, which meaning implies a collection of freedoms granted without discrimination. People are welcome to use licenses that revoke those freedoms, but calling them FOSS is confusing and muddies the waters.
See Llama's license: if it can be Open Source while having restrictions, then having an Acceptable Use Policy is okay, right? So Redis could create a license that bans its use if you host adult content, Star Wars fan fiction, or documents containing the letter R?
If Open Source doesn't mean a license that indiscriminately grants a set of specific freedoms then it's pretty useless as a term—all I know on hearing it is that a project's source code is available. Which reminds me, we already have a term for that: Source Available.
I'd argue it doesn't "just so happen" to benefit AWS, it was causal: Open Source created AWS. AWS is structured the way that it is in order to benefit from Open Source, and it grew to its current size by so benefiting.
In a lot of ways things like AWS are what the OSI set out to create when they set out to sell Free Software as an idea to corporations. This was the pitch.
> The solution is clear: start your new database with an "equitable source / source available" license from day one. Nobody will complain about a relicense since your license will handle the hyperscalers right off the bat.
Yes, this would be the honest thing to do, but people don't do it because using a non-FOSS license loses you adoption. The step you're missing in your little timeline is that the only reason the project takes off at all and becomes big enough that anyone is making money off of it is because it's Open Source. Proprietary databases, programming languages, and similar have lost big time and that's not changing any time soon.
So what's really happening is that these FOSS companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to release code for free so that other devs will use it and then make money from the project while somehow banning other companies from also making money off it.
It's really not though. The OSI quickly loses credibility when they try to push a definition that the community doesn't like (see the Open Source AI kerfuffle).
Both the OSI and the FSF are agreed that Source Available with bans on specific use cases is not FOSS. When you've got freaking Richard Stallman opposing you you really have to do better than just scream "corporate capture". Engage with his idea of Freedom, don't set up straw men.
Can you elaborate on what exactly Amazon did to Elastic? I read all of their blog posts and the only thing I really got out of it was "they sell hosted Elastic cheaper than we can", which is hardly surprising given that Elastic really just packages up AWS/GCP/Azure cloud infra. That doesn't have to be AWS selling at a loss, AWS just doesn't need to pay itself.
And by all accounts I've read Amazon did contribute back to Elastic development up until Elastic switched the license on them. At that point they forked, but it's hard to blame them when they were deliberately locked out of the original project.
Most of the arguments I've seen against Amazon with regard to Elastic have tended to be very vibe-based. Amazon bullied Elastic because that's always what Amazon does! It's plausible, but it's also plausible that Elastic thought they could use Amazon's terrible reputation as a weapon against it without there being any substance.
Even a thousand AI objectors aren't going to limit the demand for a data center, in no small part because these investments are only partially driven by current demand and are significantly driven by expectation of future demand. And they're really not going to lead to smaller data centers either because if you're building a data center in the first place you're going to spec it out for future demand.
Regardless, I think in both cases it's important to be realistic about the actual impact that one person has. If that number is disappointingly small, that serves as signal that your conscientious objection isn't making the industry you're objecting to as uncomfortable as you would like to think. It may still be worth objecting for your own sense of self, or maybe it serves as an invitation to evangelize your position more, but either way there's not much value to measuring things in a way that gives you an illusion of greater impact than you actually have.