91–100 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had hopes for MongoDB back 10 years ago, but it just let me down. I'm thinking of trying out ArangoDB next. OrientDB is just riddled with bug and their docs are lack luster.
I'd suggest to try the latest FoundationDB MongoDB layer. I would definitely do that if I had a use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the upstream vendor that issues fixes. What RedHat does is that it takes the commits that fix the bug and merge them into their forks and release.
> It is the upstream vendor that issues fixes. So if you have a bug in a RedHat package, and you're paying $100k a year RedHat support contract, all they really do is open a GH issue with the upstream to ask them to fix it? And then you just wait hoping they fix it so RedHat can cherry pick it?
There is a really limited set of options for opensource companies and I have yet to see an opensource product that would bring their creators enough money to sustain it on aything else than their goodwill. RedHat doesn't count, because they packaged other people's opensource and sold the package to enterprise. They did contribute back and even started and maintained some of the projects (which makes them "good guys" in my eyes), but any other opensource project will have difficulties replicating that success.
EDIT: I would really appreciate discussion instead of (down)votes.
It seems[0] the new MongoDB license is basically non-free and it would make no sense to include it in RHEL8. I hope Debian and other distros follow suit as a result if they come in agreement. It's sad that the license change all resorts to greed basically, as if Oracle took over MongoDB. If I were to ever use a NoSQL database for a new project I'd aim for MIT / 2-clause BSD based projects instead. PostgreSQL has no i…
If the new MongoDB licence is non-free, the chances that Debian will include that software in their repos are nil.
It seems[0] the new MongoDB license is basically non-free and it would make no sense to include it in RHEL8. I hope Debian and other distros follow suit as a result if they come in agreement. It's sad that the license change all resorts to greed basically, as if Oracle took over MongoDB. If I were to ever use a NoSQL database for a new project I'd aim for MIT / 2-clause BSD based projects instead. PostgreSQL has no i…
I had hopes for MongoDB back 10 years ago, but it just let me down. I'm thinking of trying out ArangoDB next. OrientDB is just riddled with bug and their docs are lack luster.
This seems like a non-issue to me...? The installation instructions I've always followed for MongoDB start with importing a key, and adding their official repo to my source list. I'm a debian user, but their redhat installation instructions are similar: https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/install-mongodb-on-... I guess it will be a small speed bump for people experimenting their first time, but I've never had an…
> The installation instructions I've always followed for MongoDB start with importing a key, and adding their official repo to my source list. Going with the maintainer's repo means that you trust the maintainer with providing security updates for the version you have installed or you trust them with providing a useable upgrade path. If you go with a distro package, you will get both the benefits of security updates…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had hopes for MongoDB back 10 years ago, but it just let me down. I'm thinking of trying out ArangoDB next. OrientDB is just riddled with bug and their docs are lack luster.
Why not pick a mature database software, learn to use it properly, and just get on with life? Why would you risk _anything_ to immature databases?d
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it does seem against the spirit of freedom 2. » The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html But it seems strange to even think that Red Hat would do anything that violates the idea of free software. Surely there must be about angle to it that we have not considered?
They don't want you redistributing something called Redhat Enterprise Linux after you backdoor it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" (freedom 0) You can't run it using closed source management software to offer MongoDB as a service.
By that logic the GPL is also non-free, since you can't run a GPL program embedded in a closed-source management program.
There have been arguments about whether the AGPL is discriminatory, and those have been mostly waved away (wrongly, i think, but c'est la vie).
In that vein, SSPL is arguably a free license. It simply changes when obligations to distribute source occur.
Compare to the the commons clause, which is not a free license - it says you have no right to sell the software as a service at all.