incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade Chandler <>
Subject Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Date Sun, 25 Sep 2016 03:03:59 GMT
First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally
the NB community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more
projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given reviews
over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in the top
3. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is not an open source project by the way, so I
suggest any comparisons to it, especially in the context of an organization
such as Apache, is not relevant. Money being one thing, and everything else
another, including OSS versus sort of OSS, I think it a fair question, but
I hope not a subjective and biased one.

Has moving to Apache ever reversed trends which you are referring? For
instance, does Apache champion it's own model over others? Why should a
project move to the Apache way? Us in the NB community have pushed Oracle
to move to a more open and community focused model for years. This sounded
like it was about to happen, and many were excited to hear Apache, but I
don't know what goal post this is, and if realistic, and if this email is
to be viewed negatively or not.

It doesn't seem oriented towards analyzing statements of cost to be applied
in support of other projects, or a way forward based on cost reduction or
code sharing given the initial estimate, but instead focuses on a seemingly
nebulous decline of NetBeans which is the first news I have seen of this.

Are there ways to cut the cost estimates? GoDaddy (surely others) has some
nice plans with unlimited storage and bandwidth, and some rewrites of some
systems with PHP, could make some things more viable. What about cost share
across projects with similar needs? Do no other Apache projects have
plugins or distribution needs? Other than build servers, what can't be
consolidated? What about monetary donations to projects or specific Apache
line items? Has there been any such talk?

How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
NetBeans level. Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem healthier
in my opinion. It would be a shame to not have one of the real open source
Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.



On Sep 24, 2016 7:16 PM, "Ross Gardler" <> wrote:

> The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> is seeing.
> It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
> for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
> spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
> trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member, but
> also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request
> to the board).
> Ross
> ---
> Twitter: @rgardler
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Dunning <>
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
> request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> incubator (who cause the problem).
> Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <>
> wrote:
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi folks,
> >
> >     I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> it's
> >     ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> >     notes are as follows:
> >
> >     - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> >     - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> >     - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >       on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >       come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >       is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> >     - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >       new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >       which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> time
> >       spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> phase.
> >
> >     Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
> the
> >     go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> >     host this.
> >
> >     Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > their
> >     assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> from
> >     the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> >     may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> >
> >     Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> > for
> >     a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well
> as
> >     the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> >     the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> utilize
> >     the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> >     coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> >     approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> >
> >     With regards,
> >     Daniel.
> >
> >
> >     ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >     To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >     For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message