victormy

I use RustFS as an alternative to MinIO.

RustFS

I’m also maintaining an open-source project and have spent significant time drafting our CLA, so I completely understand the concerns surrounding them.

While DCO is excellent for tracking provenance, we opted for a CLA primarily to address explicit patent grants and sublicensing rights—areas where a standard DCO often lacks the comprehensive legal coverage that a formal agreement provides.

It’s a common and sustainable practice in the industry to keep the core code open-source while developing enterprise features. Without a solid CLA in place, a project faces massive legal hurdles later on—whether that’s for future commercialization or even the eventual donation of the project to an open-source foundation like the CNCF or Apache Foundation. We're just trying to ensure long-term legal clarity for everyone involved.

Fair point on the frequency of my comments, but there’s a nuance to the CLA discussion. Even with Apache 2.0, many major projects (like those under the CNCF or Apache Foundation) require a CLA to ensure the project has the legal right to distribute the code indefinitely.

My focus on the CLA is about building a solid foundation for RustFS so it doesn't face the licensing "re-branding" drama we've seen with other storage projects recently. It’s about long-term stability for the community, not just a marketing ploy.

Lol, maybe you should fund the RustFS team yourself or sponsor a top-tier legal team for them. If you can help them rewrite their CLAs and guarantee they'll never face any IP risks down the road, then sure, you're 100% right.

Simply forking it won't work. The legal risks have been well-documented. Under their AGPL + Commercial model, the moment your fork gets too popular, MinIO can just shut you down. This is exactly why the smart money and talent have already moved on to systems like RustFS, SeaweedFS, and Garage instead of trying to maintain a doomed fork.

Okay, I'll correct my mistake,thx.

Actually, Linux reinforces my point. It isn't powered solely by volunteers; it thrives because the world's largest corporations (Intel, Google, Red Hat, etc.) foot the bill. The Linux Foundation is massively funded by corporate members, and most kernel contributors are paid engineers. Without that commercial engine, Linux would not have the dominance it does today. Even OpenAI had to pivot away from its original non-profit, open principles to survive and scale. There is nothing wrong with making money while sustaining open source. The problem is MinIO's specific approach. Instead of a symbiotic relationship, they treated the community as free QA testers and marketing pawns, only to pull up the ladder later. That’s a "bait-and-switch," not a sustainable business model.

Haha, +1. I really like RustFS as a product, but the marketing fluff and documentation put me off too. It reads like non-native speakers relying heavily on AI, which explains a lot. Honestly, they really need to bring in some native English speakers to overhaul the docs. The current vibe just doesn't land well with a US audience.

Garage is indeed an excellent project, but I think it has a few drawbacks compared to the alternatives: Metadata Backend: It relies on SQLite. I have concerns about how well this scales or handles high concurrency with massive datasets. Admin UI: The console is still not very user-friendly/polished. Deployment Complexity: You are required to configure a "layout" (regions/zones) to get started, whereas MinIO doesn't force this concept on you for simple setups. Design Philosophy: While Garage is fantastic for edge/geo-distributed use cases, I feel its overall design still lags behind MinIO and RustFS. There is a higher barrier to entry because you have to learn specific Garage concepts just to get it running.

Huge thanks for your contributions to the open-source world! Milvus is an incredibly cool product and a staple in my daily stack.

It’s been amazing to watch Milvus grow from its roots in China to gaining global trust and major VC backing. You've really nailed the commercialization, open-source governance, and international credibility aspects.

Regarding RustFS, I think that—much like Milvus in the early days—it just needs time to earn global trust. With storage and databases, trust is built over years; users are naturally hesitant to do large-scale replacements without that long track record.

Haha, maybe Milvus should just acquire RustFS? That would certainly make us feel a lot safer using it!

I don't think this is a problem. The CLA is there to avoid future legal disputes. It prevents contributors from initiating IP lawsuits later on, which could cause significantly more trouble for the project.

I don't think this is a problem. The CLA is there to avoid future legal disputes. It prevents contributors from initiating IP lawsuits later on, which could cause significantly more trouble for the project.

My Firefox access is working fine. The version is 147.0.3 (aarch64)

Haha, totally get you! I think if you forced an LLM to manage a large-scale Ceph cluster, it would probably start hallucinating about retirement.

I respectfully disagree with the notion that open source is strictly a licensing model and not a business model. For an open-source project to achieve long-term reliability and growth, it must be backed by a sustainable commercial engine. History has shown that simply donating a project to a foundation (like Apache or CNCF) isn't a silver bullet; many projects under those umbrellas still struggle to find the resources they need to thrive. The ideal path—and the best outcome for users globally—is a "middle way" where: The software remains open and maintained. The core team has a viable way to survive and fund development. Open code ensures security, transparency, and a trustworthy software supply chain. However, the way MinIO has handled this transition is, in my view, the most disappointing approach possible. It creates a significant trust gap. When a company pivots this way, users are left wondering about the integrity of the code—whether it’s the potential for "backdoors" or undisclosed data transmission. I hope to see other open-source object storage projects mature quickly to provide a truly transparent and reliable alternative.

S3 is evolving rapidly. While sticking with the old MinIO image might work for the immediate short term, I believe it is not a viable strategy for the long haul.

New standards and features are emerging constantly—such as S3 over RDMA, S3 Append, cold storage tiers, and S3 vector buckets.

In at most two or three years, relying on an unmaintained version of MinIO will likely become a liability that drags down your project as your production environment evolves. Finding an actively maintained open-source alternative is a must.

First off, I don't think there is anything wrong with MinIO closing down its open source. There are simply too many people globally who use open source without being willing to pay for it. I started testing various alternatives a few months ago, and I still believe RustFS will emerge as the winner after MinIO's exit. I evaluated Garage, SeaweedFS, Ceph, and RustFS. Here are my conclusions:

1. RustFS and SeaweedFS are the fastest in the object storage field.

2. The installation for Garage and SeaweedFS is more complex compared to RustFS.

3. The RustFS console is the most convenient and user-friendly.

4. Ceph is too difficult to use; I wouldn't dare deploy it without a deep understanding of the source code.

Although many people criticize RustFS, suggesting its CLA might be "bait," I don't think such a requirement is excessive for open source software, as it helps mitigate their own legal risks.

Furthermore, Milvus gave RustFS a very high official evaluation. Based on technical benchmarks and other aspects, I believe RustFS will ultimately win.

https://milvus.io/blog/evaluating-rustfs-as-a-viable-s3-comp...

I believe that, at the end of the day, open source enthusiasts still need to make a living.

Without a valid CLA and a strong core team, you often end up with fragmentation or legal deadlock. Even the ASF isn't a silver bullet—projects without strong leadership die there all the time. The CLA exists to prevent that friction.

The Good: Single-node is stable, and the team moves fast—most of my reported bugs get patched within a couple of weeks. The Bad: Distributed mode needs work. Bucket replication and lifecycle policies are still WIP (as noted in their roadmap) and not usable yet.

It's promising, but definitely check the roadmap before deploying at scale.

Big thanks to MinIO, RustFS, and Garage for their contributions. That said, MinIO closing the door on open source so abruptly definitely spooked the community. But honestly, fair play to them—open source projects eventually need a path to monetization.

I’ve evaluated both RustFS and Garage, and here’s the breakdown:

Release Cadence: Garage feels a bit slower, while RustFS is shipping updates almost weekly.

Licensing: Garage is on AGPLv3, but RustFS uses the Apache license (which is huge for enterprise adoption).

Stability: Garage currently has the edge in distributed environments.

With MinIO effectively bowing out of the OSS race, my money is on RustFS to take the lead.

Speaking as an open-source enthusiast, I’m actually really digging RustFS. Honestly, anything that can replace or compete with MinIO is a win for the users. Their marketing vibe feels pretty American, actually—they aren't afraid to be loud and proud, haha. You gotta give it to them though, they’ve got guts, and their timing is spot on.