[offbyone]

Ooof. I don't mind the OSS/pro feature gate for the most part, but I really don't love that "Pro version uses smarter heartbeats to track producer liveness."

There's a difference between QoL features and reliability functions; to me, at least, that means that I can't justify trying to adopt it in my OSS projects. It's too bad, too, because this looks otherwise fantastic.

[nxy7]

This is what get's me about Oban too. It's very cool but it feels bad to have 'same thing but better' gated behind payment. I want the base thing to be the best version possible and extra features be paid (so that when I need them I might start paying). Feels like sometimes boundaries between Pro and Free are made in weird place almost as if someone went out of their way to make things behave differently (maybe it's just my inexperience with Oban though).

[sorentwo]

With a typical Redis or RabbitMQ backed durable queue you’re not guaranteed to get the job back at all after an unexpected shutdown. That quote is also a little incorrect—producer liveness is tracked the same way, it’s purely how “orphaned” jobs are rescued that is different.

[offbyone]

"jobs that are long-running might get rescued even if the producer is still alive" indicates otherwise. It suggests that jobs that are in progress may be double-scheduled. That's a feature that I think shouldn't be gated behind a monthly pro subscription; my unpaid OSS projects don't justify it.

[dec0dedab0de]

Agreed. I try to avoid using anything that has this freemium model of opensource, but I let it slide for products that provide enterprise features at a cost.

This feels like core functionality is locked away, and the opensource part is nothing more than a shareware, or demo/learning version.

Edit: I looked into it a bit more, and it seems we can launch multiple worker nodes, which doesn't seem as bad as what I originally thought