21–30 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't it seem equally likely they haven't made any changes to the codebase? Or have simply contributed them to the project?
AGPL requires making 'full' source of a network service available to network users. Doubtful Schwab would do that.
(note the username!) Check out Aerospike. It's the most robust and truly "zero effort scale" real time data platform I've ever seen. Properly configured and used, it whups everything in terms of TPS and performance/machine aka TCO. By a huge, huge, factor. Downside is ... everything else. :/ Less polished developer experience, docs, &c. There are so many huge customers, but very few who are talking about it. Requires…
A 12 year old product that still has poor documentation? Plus you say TPS = TCO. That’s a good one!
Haven’t used them in production because their license doesn’t allow operating as a service. I have used an alternative.
What does that mean? What service do you have that is disallowed? We are evaluating it and are finding the license page confusing. Yugabyte seems friendlier but it seems even less talked about.
Other reasons: it’s Postgres code under the hood, not a rewrite, so you can use existing extensions. I have even contributed the support for FDWs, which I use in production.
More here https://gruchalski.com/tags/yugabytedb/ and here https://github.com/radekg/yugabyte-db-multi-tenant-paas-demo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGPL requires making 'full' source of a network service available to network users. Doubtful Schwab would do that.
If they haven't made any changes to the DB, that's just pointing them to the main website.
(IANAL)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they haven't made any changes to the DB, that's just pointing them to the main website.
AGPL considers use of unmodified copies a "covered work". And it requires source of the calling code to also be disclosed. (IANAL)
MongoDB used to be AGPL and I believe most people didn’t interpret the license as everything calling the database must be AGPL, and then everything calling the thing calling the database too, that recursively until the entire world must be licensed under AGPL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really see how this competes with cockroach. Cockroach is meant to be sql compatible, whilst Aerospike is nosql. Is that why you commented under a different username, because you are affectively spreading misinformation?
Reported for not assuming the best - or even reasonable - interpretation of the parent comment. Don’t be so insufferable.
Especially when it’s so conspiratorial in nature and spreading information that is completely unverifiable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Same birdie told me Aerospike has customers who replaced CockroachDB, when they found out it has trouble scaling past a point. Elaborate?
Nah, I'd rather be vague. ;-) The issue, I'm guessing, was that CockroachDB couldn't maintain the required latency bounds and availability past a certain point for the customer. Those are always where Aerospike wins (latency, availability, while scaling). milliseconds vs microseconds. The limiting factor isn't how many operations the platform can handle, it's how many operations/transactions you can generate before t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGPL considers use of unmodified copies a "covered work". And it requires source of the calling code to also be disclosed. (IANAL)
I read various interpretations of the AGPL and some people think it’s not the case. MongoDB used to be AGPL and I believe most people didn’t interpret the license as everything calling the database must be AGPL, and then everything calling the thing calling the database too, that recursively until the entire world must be licensed under AGPL.
Maybe people who answer/read this also evaluated yugabytedb, which has a much friendlier license (apache 2)? We are evaluating different solutions and we depend on some Postgres compatibility as we have a lot of code to that effect. Yugabyte and cockroach come up all the time.