The OP has also hacked away on OpenFaas in the open for years, giving us a portable alternative to lambda. That seems to have a pretty big value prop considering how lambda ends up being fairly expensive at scale.
Though I don’t know their motivation for hiding pricing, I suspect every enterprise level deployment (for instance into an ISP) is pretty bespoke.
and “bespoke” pricing for such models is also pretty common. doesn’t mean we have to like it.
> That seems to have a pretty big value prop considering how lambda ends up being fairly expensive at scale.
Portable is valuable, yes, but at what price ? Does anyone know what the price is ? If it’s customer-specific it’s impossible to say that this proposition is generally competitive with lambda.
Open core / commercially support products need to have published pricing for at least a standardised offering IMHO. If I need to get on a call with a salesperson to find that out (so I can do the back-of-the-envelope calculation that says whether or not this thing will cost in) it isn’t happening…
A free, MIT license is limited to 30 functions. That's enough to basically play with it, but you probably can't do anything serious. That leaves purchasing a license mandatory, but if you're pre-revenue, boot-strapping a business, that is impractical, if not impossible. Thus you pretty much have to go the vendor-locked-in lambda way; even if you already have the hardware (and expertise) to run this thing.
It is worth noting that azure functions can be run self-hosted, entirely for free.
I don't understand: if they used MIT license, what's to stop me from increasing this purely arbitrary limit?
Personally I've never had a use case for OpenFaaS but if I did, it would probably be one of the first things after installing.
So, yeah. It’d be an interesting case, but hopefully I can just eat popcorn on the sidelines. I don’t want to be the one fighting that battle.