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

TimescaleDB raises $40M

blog.timescale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#131

Post by [deleted] »

Scarbutt wrote: post #127
dataviz1000 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lately, I've been studying machine learning, from point zero, with a focus on time series analysis. Two months in already completed a course on Python and another book on Pandas, several hundreds of hours later in the fourth chapter in a book I paid for on deep learning and time series analysis they provided me with the most important information I needed: there is no evidence deep learning works better than traditio…

I prefer 'esoteric' programming languages too, they are better. Experience has taught that ecosystem is way more important for shipping stuff, so stick mostly to mainstream ones.

[deleted]

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#132

Post by hagen1778 »

some0x80070005 wrote: post #22

I guess this is an unpopular opinion, but I’ve found InfluxDB to be superb for being trivial to get going in a high performance way. I have never touched InfluxDB Cloud - always just InfluxDB either as an arbitrary process or container. Examples of where I’ve found InfluxDB to be more pleasant: * InfluxDB has way better documentation on functions. For example, look up moving average by time (not points) on TimescaleD…

From what I heard, while InfluxDB is a great product it may struggle with processing big volumes of data - see https://blog.cloudera.com/benchmarking-time-series-workloads...

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#133

Post by ZephyrBlu »

lurkerasdfh8 wrote: post #103
dataviz1000 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lately, I've been studying machine learning, from point zero, with a focus on time series analysis. Two months in already completed a course on Python and another book on Pandas, several hundreds of hours later in the fourth chapter in a book I paid for on deep learning and time series analysis they provided me with the most important information I needed: there is no evidence deep learning works better than traditio…

> Since started I learned that I don't need machine learning and that I can do the calculations inside PostgreSQL sometimes orders of magnitude faster than in Python. remeber that you are in a unique position where you know the ML application and specialized pSQL to implement it. The market is paying big bucks for people that have either of those skills. If you are making less than 300k/y (at the very least), move ou…

SQL devs make >300k/yr..?

Also, what does "knowing ML" really even mean?

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#134

Post by GordonS »

woofie11 wrote: post #89
akulkarni wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Timescale Co-founder here. Happy to address your concerns! 1. Monetization strategy This funding round is actually a sign that our business model is working really well. To quote Redpoint Ventures, who led this funding round: "The [Timescale] team capitalized on their significant community momentum last year, with their cloud business being one of the fastest-growing database businesses we have seen in the past 20+ y…

> Most companies (including open-source companies) actually have both open-source and proprietary software, but the proprietary software is often hidden inside private repos. The difference with Timescale is that we have made the source code for our proprietary software available (on Github), even allowing users to modify it (eg "right to repair), and made all of our software free (ie no paid software features). So I…

> You have a custom license for the proprietary components, which is designed to allow people to make some use of those, but is poorly-written ambiguous

I disagree with both the tone and content of your whole comment, but this bit in particular stood out. I'm a very happy TimescaleDB user, and I really like the company and community around it too. Also, support on Slack is amazing and they are always responsive on GitHub. And of course, I have read the license - to me, it's easy to read, and the intent is very clear. I see no ambiguity.

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#135

Post by woofie11 »

GordonS wrote: post #134
woofie11 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most companies (including open-source companies) actually have both open-source and proprietary software, but the proprietary software is often hidden inside private repos. The difference with Timescale is that we have made the source code for our proprietary software available (on Github), even allowing users to modify it (eg "right to repair), and made all of our software free (ie no paid software features). So I…

> You have a custom license for the proprietary components, which is designed to allow people to make some use of those, but is poorly-written ambiguous I disagree with both the tone and content of your whole comment, but this bit in particular stood out. I'm a very happy TimescaleDB user, and I really like the company and community around it too. Also, support on Slack is amazing and they are always responsive on Gi…

The intent is pretty clear. Unfortunately, the actual legal language is as clear as mud:

"that does not expose or give access to, directly or indirectly (e.g., via a wrapper), the Timescale Data Definition Interfaces or the Timescale Data Manipulation Interfaces to any person or entity other than You or Your employees and Contractors working on Your behalf"

If I have a system, and it has an AJAX API, at what point am I violating this? Virtually every system I build provides customers with access to data via some API which uses "SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE" "via a wrapper." I have no intent of competing with TimescaleDB for hosting, but it's hard to argue that data interface don't provide some form of access to Timescale Data Manipulation Interfaces "via a wrapper."

"the customer is prohibited, either contractually or technically, from defining, redefining, or modifying the database schema or other structural aspects of database objects, such as through use of the Timescale Data Definition Interfaces, in a Timescale Database utilized by such Value Added Products or Services"

I won't even begin to get into this one.

If you build on this kind of legal language, you're taking on a legal liability the size of a moon crater.

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#136

Post by mfreed »

woofie11 wrote: post #135
GordonS wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a custom license for the proprietary components, which is designed to allow people to make some use of those, but is poorly-written ambiguous I disagree with both the tone and content of your whole comment, but this bit in particular stood out. I'm a very happy TimescaleDB user, and I really like the company and community around it too. Also, support on Slack is amazing and they are always responsive on Gi…

The intent is pretty clear. Unfortunately, the actual legal language is as clear as mud: "that does not expose or give access to, directly or indirectly (e.g., via a wrapper), the Timescale Data Definition Interfaces or the Timescale Data Manipulation Interfaces to any person or entity other than You or Your employees and Contractors working on Your behalf" If I have a system, and it has an AJAX API, at what point am…

The first line you quote is in a section defining rights for Internal Use (Section 2.1.a) If you are providing access to your customers, it's not internal use.

The second quote is about providing access to customers (Section 2.1.b). Note it certainly allows SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETEs (those are DML operations), it prohibits you from allowing customers to do things like `CREATE TABLE` (those are DDL operations).

https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-2-1-grant

This is our approach to define what it means to provide "TimescaleDB-as-a-Service" from a more technical perspective, that hopefully a developer can grok, as opposed to just stating something about "you can't compete", which is open to broader interpretation.

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#137

Post by woofie11 »

mfreed wrote: post #136
woofie11 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intent is pretty clear. Unfortunately, the actual legal language is as clear as mud: "that does not expose or give access to, directly or indirectly (e.g., via a wrapper), the Timescale Data Definition Interfaces or the Timescale Data Manipulation Interfaces to any person or entity other than You or Your employees and Contractors working on Your behalf" If I have a system, and it has an AJAX API, at what point am…

The first line you quote is in a section defining rights for Internal Use (Section 2.1.a) If you are providing access to your customers, it's not internal use. The second quote is about providing access to customers (Section 2.1.b). Note it certainly allows SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETEs (those are DML operations), it prohibits you from allowing customers to do things like `CREATE TABLE` (those are DDL operations).…

I think you've done a very good job of doing something which a developer will grog.

I think you've done a very poor job with doing something which a court will grog the same way.

I think that's where the astronomical potential liability comes in with respect to using your product.

A lot of 2.1.a versus 2.1.b will hinge on details of how a court will read ambiguous language like "not primarily database storage or operations products". I assume you wanted to say "not primarily database storage or database operations products." However, it could just as easily read "not primarily operations or database storage products." At that point, "operations" has broadly different meanings (e.g. business operations?).

And aside from that, if I'm making a medical database product, is that primarily "database storage?" Probably.

The problem with ambiguous legal language is that:

1) You, or a vulture successor, can plausibly sue anyone who does just about anything.

2) If we assume you vulture successor has a 20% chance of winning $20 million, the outcomes is a $4 million settlement.

Which is why good lawyers avoid it. The whole document is just bad legal language.

But even if it was GOOD legal language, it wouldn't matter. The difference between a custom-form license and a standard OSI license is that competent customers need to spend a few grand on legal fees before they use yours.

I understand what you're trying to do, but every other organization that went that way eventually went with a standard license. You'd be better off doing likewise. Or if you really can't, you're better off working to make a community-recognized standard form license which is used by enough products that it has a standard, common, recognized legal understanding.

I know the risks of the AGPL, and where it will or won't hurt me. I don't know the risks of your license, except that they're obviously huge.

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#138

Post by GordonS »

woofie11 wrote: post #137
mfreed wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first line you quote is in a section defining rights for Internal Use (Section 2.1.a) If you are providing access to your customers, it's not internal use. The second quote is about providing access to customers (Section 2.1.b). Note it certainly allows SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETEs (those are DML operations), it prohibits you from allowing customers to do things like `CREATE TABLE` (those are DDL operations).…

I think you've done a very good job of doing something which a developer will grog. I think you've done a very poor job with doing something which a court will grog the same way. I think that's where the astronomical potential liability comes in with respect to using your product. A lot of 2.1.a versus 2.1.b will hinge on details of how a court will read ambiguous language like "not primarily database storage or oper…

I don't know about the US specifically, but here in Europe the courts take a dim view of trying to weasel around wording when the intent is clear - if the intent is clear, that's the most import thing.

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#139

Post by gsich »

akulkarni wrote: post #82
gsich wrote: post #59

What I want in TimescaleDB is aggregation of old values in the SAME table. There is no use when I have to do this in a seperate table, Grafana overhead will be insane.

Have you looked at Real-time aggregates in TimescaleDB? It might help address the problem you are facing: "With real-time aggregation, when you query a continuous aggregate view, rather than just getting the pre-computed aggregate from the materialized table, the query will transparently combine this pre-computed aggregate with raw data from the hypertable that’s yet to be materialized. And, by combining raw and mate…

Thanks!

Re: TimescaleDB raises $40M

#140

Post by mfreed »

woofie11 wrote: post #137
mfreed wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first line you quote is in a section defining rights for Internal Use (Section 2.1.a) If you are providing access to your customers, it's not internal use. The second quote is about providing access to customers (Section 2.1.b). Note it certainly allows SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETEs (those are DML operations), it prohibits you from allowing customers to do things like `CREATE TABLE` (those are DDL operations).…

I think you've done a very good job of doing something which a developer will grog. I think you've done a very poor job with doing something which a court will grog the same way. I think that's where the astronomical potential liability comes in with respect to using your product. A lot of 2.1.a versus 2.1.b will hinge on details of how a court will read ambiguous language like "not primarily database storage or oper…

Realize you might not be comfortable with the license.

For others, I can share at least that it was drafted by some of the most experienced copyright & IP counsel there is, including with significant open-source licensing experience.

But anyway, we're providing it as free software, so if you don't feel comfortable with it, you are certainly free to use our Apache-2 version. Cheers!

Post reply on HN