Your competing product's org has a bad track record here of canceling new tools, so from that perspective, the small, neutral, and fully open solution seems safer choice given the two. I'd reconsider barking up this tree.
More objectively: It's new, production architects of "serious" code shouldn't depend on either. However, one of them represents a lot of "boring" stacks, so if a team is comfortable forking vs NIH'ing, this may be closer to "serious" production-worthy.
The idea is pretty cool IMO - we were looking at Replicated years ago, and if they had gone open like this, we would have considered them more seriously.
Comments
Your competing product's org has a bad track record here of canceling new tools, so from that perspective, the small, neutral, and fully open solution seems safer choice given the two. I'd reconsider barking up this tree.
More objectively: It's new, production architects of "serious" code shouldn't depend on either. However, one of them represents a lot of "boring" stacks, so if a team is comfortable forking vs NIH'ing, this may be closer to "serious" production-worthy.
The idea is pretty cool IMO - we were looking at Replicated years ago, and if they had gone open like this, we would have considered them more seriously.