porter

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

Explore on GitHub Read Hacker News discussions

8Distinct people

12Mentions

0Explicit recommenders

REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 8:27:21 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year12 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2021-02-21 21:08:41 UTC to 2024-04-29 18:49:49 UTC.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges

UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
Period	Start (UTC)	End (exclusive, UTC)	Mentions	Submissions	Comments
2021	2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	5	4	1
2022	2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	4	0	4
2023	2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	0	1
2024	2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2	0	2

What Hacker News says

2 sources

ofrzeta·Apr 29, 2024

There's Porter, the "Kubernetes powered PaaS that runs in your own cloud". https://github.com/porter-dev/porter and Otomi, "self-hosted DevOps PaaS for Kubernetes" https://github.com/redkubes/otomi-core

In Open-source alternative to Heroku, Vercel, and Netlify

abelanger·Mar 8, 2024

Yep, we're backed by YC in the W24 batch - this is evident on our landing page [1]. We're both second time CTOs and we've been on both sides of this, as consumers of and creators of OSS. I was previously a co-founder and CTO of Porter [2], which had an open-core model. There are two risks that most companies think about in the open core model: 1. Big companies using your platform without contributing back in some way or buying a license. I think this is less of a risk, because these organizations are incentivized to buy a support license to help with maintenance, upgrades, and since we sit on a critical path, with uptime. 2. Hyperscalers folding your product in to their offering [3]. This is a bigger risk but is also a bit of a "champagne problem". Note that smaller companies/individual developers are who we'd like to enable, not crowd ou

Read the rest

t. If people would like to use our cloud offering because it reduces the headache for them, they should do so. If they just want to run our service and manage their own PostgreSQL, they should have the option to do that too. Based on all of this, here's where we land on things: 1. Everything we've built so far has been 100% MIT licensed. We'd like to keep it that way and make money off of Hatchet Cloud. We'll likely roll out a separate enterprise support agreement for self hosting. 2. Our cloud version isn't going to run a different core engine or API server than our open source version. We'll write interfaces for all plugins to our servers and engines, so even if we have something super specific to how we've chosen to do things on the cloud version, we'll expose the options to write your own plugins on the engine and server. 3. We'd like to make self-hosting as easy to use as our cloud version. We don't want our self-hosted offering to be a second-class citizen. Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. [1] https://hatchet.run [2] https://github.com/porter-dev/porter [3] https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws

In Show HN: Hatchet – Open-source distributed task queue