I always use good ol’ MySQL. If anything happens can hop to Maria
CockroachDB license change
281–290 of 476 posts
Re: CockroachDB license change
#282Overall I feel like this is a step in the right direction. I do love Cockroach, but the old licensing model was pretty brutal if you required any enterprise features (ex: incremental backup). For reference, some other data stores doing "horizontal scale of writes" ..any others I'm missing ? * MySQL: Vitess, Planetscale, TiDB, MariaDB Spider * Postgres: Citus, YugabyteDB, YDB, Neon * SQLite: mvsqlite, marmot * Documen…
Most of those solutions are not on part with Cockroach, Cockroach is basically Spanner usable outside of Google. So global transaction with cluster world wide.
spanner != cockroach. Spanner has specialized hardware with atomic clocks. It's better.
https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/living-without-atomic-clo...
Re: CockroachDB license change
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that whenever an open source project is run by a VC-backed company, it sooner or later ends up like this. Increasingly it seems that "open source" is just the teaser to get people interested and then when investors want revenue growth, the rug gets pulled. IMO, it's not really open source if its run by a company that will eventually use its position to squeeze its users for cash.
> IMO, it's not really open source if its run by a company that will eventually use its position to squeeze its users for cash. I know it's not as popular or sexy as it used to be, but the whole point of a foundation like Apache was to avoid these situations, even more than the way the Linux Foundation is setup. Apache _explicitly_ manages projects to avoid these downsides. - Single corporation ownership. Projects ca…
What is more popular than the Apache Foundation? I thought Apache was top... Is there a cooler/better Apache? If so, please let me know.
And when was Apache more popular? I thought it was the uncool place where stuff was written in Java, that became popular because people's conception of Java (and the language/ecosystem itself) changed.
Re: CockroachDB license change
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old school open source projects don't seem particularly profitable. The projects themselves might thrive, but that seem to rely on altruistic developers with other sources of income. Richard Stallman himself doesn't seem to make money from any software he made directly, but from various grants and such, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20220123032418/http://tech.mit.e... I thought he was on the payroll for FS…
You're kinda saying the same thing there. As a developer, I don't want to rely on code from a project that "seems particularly profitable", because one day it's 100% certain they're going to start making their profit off me. I'm _extremely_ wary of any "open source" projects that're VC funded, because the entire VC industry exists to make rich people richer at everybody else's expense, throwing a few bones at a few o…
I am saying that old school projects aren't paying the developers' bills because they aren't profitable. The developers realize this too, there is only so much altruism to go around but you got mouths to feed and rents to pay.
As an alternative to working on a second job to fund their passion, we are seeing developers trying various things to make their one passion job pay, such as licensing tweaks or VC funding. These don't seem to work out very well, I think it's best explained here:
https://apenwarr.ca/log/20211229
"So it is with free software. You literally cannot pay for it. If you do, it becomes something else."Re: CockroachDB license change
#285I understand the goal, and the perceived abuse of the Core edition. But the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive, "contact us" salesy, and it feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor. The Core offering made this palatable, one could fallback to Core features if…
> the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive
Seems to me that it's still free for development, and small business use. If you're over $10M in revenue, with a business or product built on CockroachDB, they want a share of what they made possible. That seems totally reasonable to me.
Re: CockroachDB license change
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that whenever an open source project is run by a VC-backed company, it sooner or later ends up like this. Increasingly it seems that "open source" is just the teaser to get people interested and then when investors want revenue growth, the rug gets pulled. IMO, it's not really open source if its run by a company that will eventually use its position to squeeze its users for cash.
Old(?) school open source with GPL licenses doesn't seem to suffer from this, on a first glance. Maybe Stallman was right. Would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable on this. I'm not trying to troll.
What is the GPL-licensed product that is comparable in functionality and scalability to CockroachDB? If there is one, you're free to use it.
Re: CockroachDB license change
#287It's a surprising and very welcome change. Most will benefit.
If you have more than $10M revenue, why on earth would you run the limited open core version of CochroachDB just to save some $1K-$10K (which is about the enterprise license cost). The open core version has limitations you don't want to miss esp. reg. backup and restore, encryption, follower reads. Now all those features are available for free if you're small.
Re: CockroachDB license change
#288This made me wonder about postgres. Is Postgres at risk of being taken over by some corporate? What can we learn from all these free open-source databases that has gone enterprise commercial.
Re: CockroachDB license change
#289I understand the goal, and the perceived abuse of the Core edition. But the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive, "contact us" salesy, and it feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor. The Core offering made this palatable, one could fallback to Core features if…
> perceived abuse of the Core edition
They don't say that this was the reason for the change. What makes you presume it was "perceived" if they had said it was a reason for the change? I think it's the opposite: Too few used the open core edition, as it is quite limited. They want to increase the overall usage. They want to get growing companies using it. I think it's a fair move: Use it for free as long as you grow. You benefit. When you're large, pay us back. We benefit.
> feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor
That's about the strongest negative allegation one could come up with. Unobjective content and wording. There're thousands of software vendors or service providers out there (DB and not) that are competitive (they all are) but fair. Every of our much liked startups like Supabase, Neon, Vercel makes the entry very cheap or free and compensates for that with larger fees from the larger customers. There's nothing shady about it.
As I said, your post has to much negative bias in content and esp. wording. I don't see that. Factually, there's not risk at all. Every company (see Redis) can change their license of their future work. So you never have any guarantees. With or without a core edition.
If you want "true" open source, you can't choose a software developed by a company. The goal of a company is to make money. That should not be surprising.
Re: CockroachDB license change
#290This made me wonder about postgres. Is Postgres at risk of being taken over by some corporate? What can we learn from all these free open-source databases that has gone enterprise commercial.
That is a valid concern, see what happened with Redis or MySQL. But I think (while valid) it's very unlikely. Postgres can't be "bought". A company would need to start building an own version and make it better than the still existing open source version. Then they would need to convince people to pay for it. Not a good business idea.