The MinIO business model was a freemium model (well, Open Source + commercial support, which is slightly different). They used the free OSS version to drive demand for the commercially licensed version. It’s not like they had a free community version with users they needed to support thrust upon them — this was their plan. They weren’t volunteers.

You could argue that they got to the point where the benefit wasn’t worth the cost, but this was their business model. They would not have gotten to the point where the could have a commercial-only operation without the adoption and demand generated from the OSS version.

Running a successful OSS project is often a thankless job. Thanks for doing it. But this isn’t that.

▲

Ensorceled 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Running a successful OSS project is often a thankless job. Thanks for doing it. But this isn’t that.

No, even if you are being paid, it's a thankless, painful job to deal with demanding, entitled free users. It's worse if you are not being paid, but I'm not sure why you are asserting dealing with bullshit is just peachy if you are being paid.

▲

merb 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If that is the case why did minio start with the open source version? If there were only downsides? Sounds like stupid business plan

	▲	throwaway894345 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They wanted adoption and a funnel into their paid offering. They were looking out for their own self-interest, which is perfectly fine; however, it’s very different from the framing many are giving in this thread of a saintly company doing thankless charity work for evil homelab users.