> MinIO as an S3-compatible object store is already feature-complete. It’s finished software.

I don't see how these two lines can be written together.

The goal is either to remain S3-compatible or to freeze the current interface of the service forever.

As it stands this fork's compatibility with S3, and with the official MinIO itself, will break as soon as one of them pushes an API update. Which works fine for existing users, maybe, but over time as the projects drift further apart no new ones will be able to onboard.

▲

chatmasta 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The S3 API is quite stable and most new features are opt-in (e.g. ApplyIfModified) or auxiliary (e.g. S3Tables). It’s highly unlikely that S3 proper will break backwards compatibility for clients with any future API change. So if all you need is basic object storage that works with existing S3 clients, then MinIO is enough. The fork just needs to keep CVEs patched and maintain community hygiene (accept new PRs for small bug fixes, etc.). And as the author points out, this is much easier in the age of AI than it might have been previously.

▲

teeray 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> The S3 API is quite stable

With so many things offering S3 compatibility, I’d say it’s de-facto standardized.

▲

mtndew4brkfst 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I can't see how Amazon is incentivized to avoid making any changes that break compatibility for their imitators, so long as their first party SDKs continue working. Standardized feels like it should be suffixed with "as long as Amazon doesn't ever feel like evolving the product further".

	▲	necubi 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It would be pretty shocking for Amazon to break the S3 API at this point. There is a huge 3rd party ecosystem that would be affected. For example, in Rust land the object_store crate is at least as popular as the official SDK.
	▲	uroni 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There is a lot of software that directly implements the HTTP S3 API. That API is also documented by Amazon. E.g. the last implementation I saw was by DuckDB https://github.com/duckdb/duckdb-httpfs/blob/main/src/s3fs.c...
	▲	bigbuppo 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If amazon changes the API they've angered their entire customer base that relies on the API. Sure, some will stick around if they're fully entrenched by the ecosystem, but others will be able to leave, and they will, because hey, S3 is a standard-ish API.

▲

thayne 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

From whatI can tell, "s3 compatibility" usually means compatibility with some subset of the actual s3 API. And what subset that is varies a fair amount between projects.