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

Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

turso.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 238 posts

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#201

Post by sowbug »

w4 wrote: post #191
znpy wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain" it's wrong though. like, can't be more wrong than that. you can't do whatever you want with open source software, the license tells what you can and cannot do. with public domain software you can do most things.

Open source means just that: that the source is open. The OSI and co. re-defining the term to suit their ideological preferences doesn’t really change that. SQLite is open source, even if it’s not Open Source. Edit: FSF should have been OSI, I think. Fixed.

I don't understand why OSI didn't pick an actually trademarkable term and license its use to projects that meet its ideals of open-sourceness. OSI knows it has no right to redefine common language and police its usage, any more than a grammar pedant has the right to levy fines against those of us who split infinitives.

(To be fair to OSI, I've never seen any of their representatives do this. But the internet vigilante squad they've spawned feels quite empowered to let us know we've broken the rules.)

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#202

Post by raggi »

avinassh wrote: post #19
eimrine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It uses Asynchronous I/O Can it have more than 1 writer?

As of now it has a single writer, same like SQLite. But we plan to add MVCC with multiple writers in the future. Pekka has experimented with MVCC earlier: https://github.com/penberg/tihku

I assume this will need to change the shared memory header protocol so either SQLite comes along for the ride or this is an incompatible ABI?

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#203

Post by froh »

vitiral wrote: post #120

> SQLite’s test suite is proprietary This is literally the first time I've ever heard of this, for any project anywhere. I suppose Android is built a bit in this way, but that's a whole other can of worms.

they do not fully own said proprietary sql test suite. they've licensed it. that's why they can _run_ it but not publish it or share it. That's at least how I remember Richard Hick describing the situation at a talk.

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#205

Post by hnarn »

w4 wrote: post #191
znpy wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain" it's wrong though. like, can't be more wrong than that. you can't do whatever you want with open source software, the license tells what you can and cannot do. with public domain software you can do most things.

Open source means just that: that the source is open. The OSI and co. re-defining the term to suit their ideological preferences doesn’t really change that. SQLite is open source, even if it’s not Open Source. Edit: FSF should have been OSI, I think. Fixed.

> The OSI and co. re-defining the term

I don't know where you got this idea but it's not true. The OSI is simply defending the definition as it has been generally understood since the start of its usage in the 1980s by Stallman and others.

The only group of people "re-defining" -- quite successfully I suppose, which you are an example of -- what open source software means are those that have a profit motive to use the term to gain traction during the initial phase where a proprietary model would not have benefited them.

I don't think I need to provide concrete examples of companies that begin with an open source licensing model, only to rug-pull their users as soon as they feel it might benefit them financially, these re-licensing discussions show up on HN quite often.

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#206

Post by apitman »

anitil wrote: post #199
apitman wrote: post #109

The sqlite implementation that matters the most the next 10 years will be the one with the smallest WASM build.

Why do you believe that? I'm guessing you're thinking about in-browser or sandboxed lambdas?

Local-first primarily.

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#207

Post by IshKebab »

thih9 wrote: post #70
bruce511 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The SQLite3 business model is that SQLite3 is open source This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. The distinction is subtle, but it is important.

Details if anyone is interested: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source

They don't own the words "open source" no matter how much they might like to.

> “Open Source” describes a subset of free software that is made available under a copyright license approved by the Open Source Initiative as conforming with the Open Source Definition.

No it doesn't. It describes software whose source is "open" which is generally understood to mean that you can read, modify and reuse the code for free.

Public domain definitely fits that. The "public domain doesn't exist in some countries" arguments are spurious as far as I can tell.

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#208

Post by IshKebab »

Intermernet wrote: post #91
quotemstr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any definition of open source that doesn't include the public domain is out of touch with how real people use the words "open source" and is therefore useless. You can make up any definition you want, but if you insist on calling elephants "bananas", I'm not going to take you seriously

How people use the term "fair use" is out of touch with the legal definition. That doesn't change the legal definition, it means people use the term incorrectly.

It means the common use of "fair use" is different to the legal definition. It doesn't mean either are wrong. It isn't wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable. In common use it is.

Similarly the common use of "open source" is different to the OSI's preferred definition. Note that the OSI's preferred definition is not a legal definition. It's just what they prefer.

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#209

Post by pjmlp »

hnarn wrote: post #205
w4 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source means just that: that the source is open. The OSI and co. re-defining the term to suit their ideological preferences doesn’t really change that. SQLite is open source, even if it’s not Open Source. Edit: FSF should have been OSI, I think. Fixed.

> The OSI and co. re-defining the term I don't know where you got this idea but it's not true. The OSI is simply defending the definition as it has been generally understood since the start of its usage in the 1980s by Stallman and others. The only group of people "re-defining" -- quite successfully I suppose, which you are an example of -- what open source software means are those that have a profit motive to use th…

In the 1980s we had Shareware, Beerware, Postware, whateverWare, Public Domain, "send me a coffee", "I don't care" open source, magazine and book listings under their own copyright licenses (free for typing, not distribution).

Most of us on 8 and 16 bit home computers didn't even knew "Stallman and others" were.

Additionally, GCC only took off after Sun became the first UNIX vendor to split UNIX into two SKUs, making the whole development tools its own product. Others quickly followed suit.

Also, in regards to Ada adoption hurdles, when they made an Ada compiler, it was its own SKU, not included on the UNIX SDK base package.

Re: Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust

#210

Post by Aissen »

delifue wrote: post #204
cryptonector wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need a source? You can clone SQLite3 and count the lines yourself.

The test code of sqlite is not public.

Yes and no. Part of it is public, just not the "best" part: https://www.sqlite.org/testing.html
Post reply on HN