Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#241

Post by xtiansimon »

pizza234 wrote: post #239
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a bunch of stuff on HN currently about not believing everything you're told and fake memories and such, but anyway I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition - that this definition, and the referenced site, have sort of taken over the definition and applied an extreme version of the term. I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these w…

> I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition Following the "paper trail", the chronology is: 1. the "Open Source Definition", last modification in 2007, is based on "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", I suppose v1.1 2. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.1 was ratified in 2004, and is based on v1.0 3. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.0 was ratified in 1997 so ultimately, in stric…

I’m confused. I believed the story of Open Source software begins in the 50s and 60s when early OS was essentially free, and the beasts software ran on was the profit center.

The culture for free open source software (and its benefits) was prevalent. But by the 70s companies we’re changing their attitude about this IP. I’m a reaction to increased restrictions Richard Stallman founded the GNU project in 1983.

Is there an Other World theory where this was not the case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#242

Post by merlynn »

StavrosK wrote: post #234
nailer wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from Rethink and Mongo I don't like SQL. I don't want rows at all, or documentation that assumes a table model. Having a JSON data type doesn't mean you're a document store.

Postgres can do JSON. Does MongoDB have schemas yet?

Yes. MongoDB enabled a standards-based approach to schemas back in 3.6... should you feel you need schemas. https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/core/schema-validation/

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#243

Post by bryanrasmussen »

xtiansimon wrote: post #241
pizza234 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition Following the "paper trail", the chronology is: 1. the "Open Source Definition", last modification in 2007, is based on "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", I suppose v1.1 2. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.1 was ratified in 2004, and is based on v1.0 3. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.0 was ratified in 1997 so ultimately, in stric…

I’m confused. I believed the story of Open Source software begins in the 50s and 60s when early OS was essentially free, and the beasts software ran on was the profit center. The culture for free open source software (and its benefits) was prevalent. But by the 70s companies we’re changing their attitude about this IP. I’m a reaction to increased restrictions Richard Stallman founded the GNU project in 1983. Is there…

The question is whether Open Source has always been synonymous with free, I do not believe it has I just believe it has historically been strongly correlated but I could be wrong. However using the OSI as evidence of the original meaning of the term doesn't strike me as at all authoritative, especially as the OSI has all sorts of conditions that I do not believe were in any original definition of the term.

as I am not a prescriptivist in language as a general rule it may be that I should alter my usage of the term to follow OSI usage, but then I feel that a useful term is needed for software where you can inspect the source as needed - perhaps inspectable source.

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#244

Post by pizza234 »

xtiansimon wrote: post #241
pizza234 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition Following the "paper trail", the chronology is: 1. the "Open Source Definition", last modification in 2007, is based on "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", I suppose v1.1 2. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.1 was ratified in 2004, and is based on v1.0 3. the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" v1.0 was ratified in 1997 so ultimately, in stric…

I’m confused. I believed the story of Open Source software begins in the 50s and 60s when early OS was essentially free, and the beasts software ran on was the profit center. The culture for free open source software (and its benefits) was prevalent. But by the 70s companies we’re changing their attitude about this IP. I’m a reaction to increased restrictions Richard Stallman founded the GNU project in 1983. Is there…

As far as I understand, the parent's doubt is about the _definition_ of "open source":

> I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition

> I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa.

In this perspective, the history, as reported, matches: originally, there was a "free software" concept and movement (the formal definition was given in 1986), then, in 1998, the "open source" term was coined.

Based on Stallman's critic to the Open Source ideas (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....):

> For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately.

The parent's doubt has verified grounds.

However, there's confusion, because it seems that the "Open Source Definition" is _now_ closer to "Free software" than it was when Stallman expressed his opinion: by that time, Open Watcom qualified as "Open source", but nowadays, based on the "Open Source Definition", it wouldn't.

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#245

Post by cycloptic »

DangitBobby wrote: post #199
cycloptic wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone can undercut you so easily then your products are overpriced. I would not say this is "not so great for commercial businesses" just because the GPL does not make an effort to prop up phony business models.

Or they can undercut you because you made your core competency freely available. It cost you a great deal of time and money to make, and it cost then nearly nothing to use. However, while you were pouring time and labor into developing the product, they were doing the same with infrastructure that could support managed offerings of your product and products like yours (without necessarily ever having to do any real i…

That still isn't undercutting when you don't even have the infrastructure to sell the proposed service. Those companies are not your competitors.

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#246

Post by octohedron »

truth_seeker wrote: post #175
thiscatis wrote: post #3

Would love to see an overview of companies that fell into the mongoDB trap and have / are migrating to another DB store.

I am neither for MongoDB or for any famous ABC or XYZ DB. But before I make my decision to change to any other DB, i evaluate my using my own conscience and not depend upon bashing of any X DB on the internet. I had the opportunity to redesign the architectures of few productions running apps because of this superstition "Companies are falling due to MongoDB, lets switch to another DB" Every single time, as an archit…

As someone with several years of experience with both RDBs and mongodb, I totally agree with everything you said.

Also, you got downvoted by the same people that upvoted the stackoverflow post on the problems of downvoting on technical problems on the internet.

People might not like or know the technology and are guided by older tech gurus from the previous generation such as Edgar Frank "Ted" Codd, although he was a genius, now the market is much larger and there's a lot more use cases.

Additionally, most people know RDBs such as mysql and that's what they are comfortable with, i.e. can't get out of their comfort zone and give an honest and good try to something else or don't even have time.

Also it's what's taught in courses as superior to non relational databases.

I would not change our MongoDB clusters for Postgres/MySQL/etc even if I could do it with a single command. In this case it's not relational data though, for a large business relational model I would stick with RDBs.

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#247

Post by pas »

SergeAx wrote: post #213
nevi-me wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version where it was open source. To what end? Why should we use a fork that's supported by a few people when we can still use the Community Edition that's from the horse's mouth? The idea of forking things for the fun of it actually perpetuates the problem that we already have with OSS. We want to get things for free, use them to make money, but still expect support for ne…

The idea of free software is that user can (and have the right to) modify it in any way one wants. If I found a bug in free software, I can fix it by myself or wait for someone else to fix it, or pay someone to make a fix. That's the way it works. (edit: typo)

You can do all that with Mongo's new license.

It's an AGPL + AWS-is-killing-our-support/monitoring/ops-business license.

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#248

Post by statictype »

grumpydba wrote: post #197
elevenbits wrote: post #187

I'm astonished at all the comments that vilify MongoDB Inc and then talk about moving to AWS's MongoDB clone. What sort of twisted world are we living in where a company makes a service, tries to sell the service, and then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale? Cloud providers have been able to stand on the shoulders of giants, profiting immensely from millions of lines of open…

> I'm astonished at all the comments that vilify MongoDB Inc and then talk about moving to AWS's MongoDB clone. What sort of twisted world are we living in where a company makes a service, tries to sell the service, and then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale? The bait and switch strategy is deceptive. It's aim is to milk customers to give some money back the the VCs. But th…

It's not really a bait and switch.

They didn't use an Open Source license with the intention of getting popular and then pulling the rug out from underneath users.

They tried to make their money by offering their tech as a service and found that they couldn't compete against the resources of large cloud providers who were happily profiting off of their (and the community's) hard work.

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#249

Post by pas »

makomk wrote: post #226
bad_user wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in the world where we can see a bait and switch for what it is. MongoDB was advertised as being Open Source and Free Software , distributed under an OSI-compliant and FSF-compliant license. Now they are trying to eat their cake and have it too. > " then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale? " Because that's not what open source is about. Open source is about contributi…

Not only that, MongoDB accepted code contributions from the community under the pretense that their software was open source. They then used the copyright assignment that they required from all contributors to make it non-open-source when they did this license change.

And anyone that sent in patches benefited from it. What's your point?

Cloud providers are now barred from using new MongoDB versions.

Is that fair? Well, the developers (a company) made a choice. They want the revenue from the support/monitoring business, AWS is eating their lunch. So either they completely change their business or try to somehow stop AWS et al. from doing that.

Since MongoDB just recently released 4.x with distributed transactions, it made sense to do the license change thing. Otherwise no one would care (and anyone stuck on AWS would just continue to use whatever 3.x compatible AWS provided).

And still, it's likely that AWS will continue to offer their non-feature-parity fork for quite some time.

So, in that sense anyone who cares or cared for AGPL MongoDB tech should have advocated for this license change a lot sooner.

Re: Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas

#250

Post by statictype »

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #74
Thorrez wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you do mean by the "mongoDB trap"? Are you saying companies are hurt by the license, or are you saying companies are hurt by software's behavior (e.g. consistency model)?

A lot of companies got lured into using mongodb because it was so developer friendly. It cost nothing and it was easy bring in the back door and alleviated the need for thought. Then their sales people started coming around and asking for insane sums of money (like $10,000 per instance per year plus 100% markup on hardware to run in AWS - support is extra). They were worried about amazon and others offering a better…

>If it had been SQL it would have been easy to drop in another database.

Hahaha. No.

If anything, migrating from something like Mongo might possibly be easier. Because it's non-relational, you probably have very little business logic in your database layer.

Unlike with Sql.

And even though Sql has a standard syntax, beyond vanilla CRUD queries, there are many differences. Even if 2 engines support the same synatx, the idiomatic way of doing something will differ.

(For example, cursors in Sql Server is extremely slow, whereas its a perfectly acceptable way of doing list operations in Postgres)

Post reply on HN