MariaDB CEO Accuses Large Cloud Vendors of Strip-Mining Open Source (zdnet.com) 200
Big cloud companies are "strip-mining open-source technologies and companies," complains Michael Howard, CEO of MariaDB. At their developer conference, Howard accused "big cloud" of "really abusing the license and privilege [of open source], by not giving back to the community." ZDNet reports:
Even as MariaDB grows by leaps and bounds in enterprise computing at Oracle's expense, Howard sees Oracle and Amazon fighting against it. "Oracle as the example of on-premise lock-in and Amazon being the example of cloud lock-in. You could interchange the names, you can honestly say now that Amazon should just be called Oracle Prime...."
In the first keynote, Austin Rutherford, MariaDB's VP of Customer Success, showed the result of a HammerDB benchmark on AWS EC2... In these tests, AWS's default MariaDB instances did poorly, while AWS homebrew Aurora, which is built on top of MySQL, consistently beat them. The top-performing database management system of all was MariaDB Managed Services on AWS. "My first reaction when I looked at the benchmarks," said Howard, was "maybe there's incompetence going on. Maybe they just don't know how to optimize a DBMS." He observed that one MariaDB customer, one of the biggest retail drug companies in the world, had told MariaDB that "Amazon offers the most vanilla MariaDB around. There's nothing enterprise about it. We could just install MariaDB from source on EC2 and do as well."
He then "began to wonder, Is there something that they're deliberately crippling?" Howard wouldn't go so far as to say AWS is consciously doing a poor job of implementing its MariaDB instances. Howard did say, "And then it became clear that, however, you want to articulate this, there is something not kosher happening." Howard doesn't have much against AWS promoting its own brands... But, if AWS's going out of its way to make a rival service look inferior to its own, well, Howard's not happy about that.
ZDNet adds that "it's also quite possible that unoptimized generic MariaDB instance will simply lag behind AWS-optimized Aurora.
"That said, even in this most innocent take on the benchmark results, cloud customers would be wise to take into consideration that cloud instances of any specific software service may not be created equal."
In the first keynote, Austin Rutherford, MariaDB's VP of Customer Success, showed the result of a HammerDB benchmark on AWS EC2... In these tests, AWS's default MariaDB instances did poorly, while AWS homebrew Aurora, which is built on top of MySQL, consistently beat them. The top-performing database management system of all was MariaDB Managed Services on AWS. "My first reaction when I looked at the benchmarks," said Howard, was "maybe there's incompetence going on. Maybe they just don't know how to optimize a DBMS." He observed that one MariaDB customer, one of the biggest retail drug companies in the world, had told MariaDB that "Amazon offers the most vanilla MariaDB around. There's nothing enterprise about it. We could just install MariaDB from source on EC2 and do as well."
He then "began to wonder, Is there something that they're deliberately crippling?" Howard wouldn't go so far as to say AWS is consciously doing a poor job of implementing its MariaDB instances. Howard did say, "And then it became clear that, however, you want to articulate this, there is something not kosher happening." Howard doesn't have much against AWS promoting its own brands... But, if AWS's going out of its way to make a rival service look inferior to its own, well, Howard's not happy about that.
ZDNet adds that "it's also quite possible that unoptimized generic MariaDB instance will simply lag behind AWS-optimized Aurora.
"That said, even in this most innocent take on the benchmark results, cloud customers would be wise to take into consideration that cloud instances of any specific software service may not be created equal."
Does anyone have a car analogy? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not comprehending enough of it.
Re:Does anyone have a car analogy? (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon basically offers 3 or 4 versions of the same car going from "you rent and maintain it yourself" to "you rent and we maintain and provide a driver for you". However it seems that if you bring your own mechanic and driver, no matter how skillful they are, their drivers and mechanics get consistently and measurably better performance out of the same car depending on the amount of money you pay to them even though they're all supposedly the same cars with the same specs.
Re: (Score:2)
Like VW emissions tests.
I've not seen this with AWS. I'm afraid that I have seen it, repeatedly, with in-house performance tests for favored projects, especially when the developer proposing the new technology runs only small scale tests on their laptop with stripped data sets.
Re: (Score:3)
out of the same car
Is that part accurate? I would have thought that this car has special modifications.
Re: (Score:3)
The fraud involved hundreds of thousands of vehicles tuned or modified to enable emissions controls when being tested, but turn off emissions controls when in normal use. See https://www.bbc.com/news/busin... [bbc.com] .
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I was comparing the VW fraud to database fraud and CPU benchmark fraud. Many hardware vendors can, and have fraudelently improved performance when running their own preferred software suite or hindered it when running other people's software for benchmarks.
Re: (Score:3)
missing info for the car analogy ... if you hire their card and driver, you can not swap cars anymore, you either keep using it or have to rebuild your car and fix any dependency you may have to the old car service
Re: (Score:2)
MariaDB is better at modeling joins. It's important, though not a primary key. Even if you're starting with a 3D model, MariaDB can still do a table scan if your table isn't optimized.
Re: (Score:2)
Or:
being butthurt that you go through all the trouble and hassle of securing food and water for yourself, and then some parasitic worm latches onto your small intestine, giving nothing back to you, and freeloading off of your hard work.
Aurora performance is awful, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
a bare metal setup of the same size (same CPU cores, same RAM amount) will annihilate the EC2 instance on performance and at about half of the TCO over three years, but nobody seems to care about that these days.
I think most people don't know how to set that up, and they are afraid they won't be able to scale.
Fear of not being able to scale seems like the #1 concern in SV these days, but I swear to you for the average startup there are many, many more important problems you have to solve first.
Re:Aurora performance is awful, too (Score:4, Interesting)
As well as scaling issues, what moving to EC2, Google Cloud or other solutions gets you is a possible reduction in system admin costs.
Of course, there is a minimum: if you only have one system admin, you probably can't reduce your system admin costs.
Re:Aurora performance is awful, too (Score:4, Insightful)
A key factor is "possible" there. When your original sys-admin tasks have never been automated or kept in source control, the costs of shifting to a managed environment are startling. Decades of technical debt are often due in a very short period. I've particularly run into this with clients or partners who insist on optimizing their own kernels.
Re: (Score:3)
A key factor is "possible" there. When your original sys-admin tasks have never been automated or kept in source control, the costs of shifting to a managed environment are startling. Decades of technical debt are often due in a very short period. I've particularly run into this with clients or partners who insist on optimizing their own kernels.
Its possible for me to disappear and reappear in China due to quantum effects. Most cloud deployments end in disappointment. Then some snarky engineer from a larger company will say something about your company, "not being mature enough for the cloud". No shit...didn't stop the salespeople from that engineer's employeer from pushing their junky cloud on our management. Fuck google...my new curse for those I really don't like..."May your company switch to GCE and BigQuery"...
Re: Aurora performance is awful, too (Score:2)
To management they win. They want bargain basement IT costs where we are all are just putting out fires all day and not using our brains to being proactive with a good infrastructure. Opps Indian help desk is putting out the easy fires I mean . Management wants that nice bonus and a rise in the short term share price over all else
Re:Aurora performance is awful, too (Score:4, Interesting)
Fear of not being able to scale seems like the #1 concern in SV these days, but I swear to you for the average startup there are many, many more important problems you have to solve first.
Exactly. And even if they don't have scaling problems, since all the *cool* kids are working on scale issues so should they. At company I worked for recently, one that you have probably heard of and probably has your data, at peak they handle about ~12000 web requests a minute...not a second, a minute. That's 200/second, on a 50 server array. That's 4 requests a second per machine...4...not 4000, or 400...as in my phone could do it without me noticing a slowdown in performance...4. So of course they spent gobs of money moving from their custom and very modern data centers with high uptime to GCE with terrible performance, just so they could "scale". Remember, 4 requests/machine/second is the max they had to handle before. Maybe 10% of the 600 engineers they had understood just how silly this all was. But the CTO, who started as a PHP programmer at the company when it was first starting, didn't understand any of this and just let his "professional" managers run everything into the ground. Its absurd really....the software industry is now a parody of itself...
Re:Aurora performance is awful, too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, here you have a ring-side seat for free (as in beer), so don't complain or people will expect you to contribute for laughs (you could donate a PHP joke, but I am sure there are more than enough on Github).
AWS customers (Score:2)
deserve everything they get.
Just manage your own damn IT infrastructure you lazy sumbitches, and then you'll get as much performances you're willing to devote time and resources to. But if you're a cheapstake cloud sucker, you get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, and that may be even more important, you get in-house experts that have loyalty to you.
Re:AWS customers (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the easy choice for management, because "everybody uses AWS".
I've had to constantly defend my decision to use IBM Cloud as backend for an educational app. Because "everybody else" uses AWS. And this is in a primarily academic setting and background (spinoff from a project originally developed at a major U.S. university). We faced some issues with learning curve and the fact that you can't easily find consultants with IBM Cloud experience, and the "everybody" argument came up. It was eventually resolved, we got over the learning curve, and IBM has great support if you are willing to pony-up a modest $200/month for support.
It boggles my mind that so many small/medium/large businesses in retail, wholesale, transportation, distribution, etc. are trusting their data and IT to and funding a company that is out to put them out of business. AWS is the ONLY real money-maker at Amazon. Their online retail operation is FINALLY making a 2% profit!
IBM Cloud and Microsoft Azure are the RATIONAL choices right now if you want to use "big cloud" for critical infrastructure. We did not go with Azure because we do not have a Windows-based infrastructure, not into ASP, etc. etc. Though I realize that Azure has more Linux servers than Windows and offers the same open-source Linux-based solutions as the other cloud services. I think Azure would be a FINE choice for any company that is already bought-in to the Microsoft infrastructure, as they offer many unique services that would allow companies with in-house Windows-based server to move some or all to the cloud.
Neither IBM nor Microsoft is interested in putting your retail business out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM has great support if you are willing to pony-up a modest $200/month for support.
What do you get for that?
Re: (Score:2)
"It boggles my mind that so many small/medium/large businesses in retail, wholesale, transportation, distribution, etc. are trusting their data and IT to and funding a company that is out to put them out of business."
This right here is the crux of the biscuit.
I don't trust my personal info to the cloud, why in the fuck would a corporation allow the fox to run the chicken coop?
Ask Cisco what happened when they outsourced hardware production.
That apple hanging in Bezos' tree just waiting to be plucked is too
Re: (Score:2)
So the cliche has been updated? :-)
from: Nobody gets fired for buying IBM
to: Nobody gets fired for buying AWS
Re: (Score:2)
What shocked me the most was Netflix moving to the AWS cloud.
That said, I understand why people want to use AWS. It's easy to find people who understand it, or claim to understand it at least. It can do pretty much anything you want. That said, I find it pretty hard to figure out how to do pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: AWS customers (Score:2)
It's not us on slashdot. It's those pesky executives who see those Amazon Build advertisements in every airport. They then see the cost savings by firing IT and having Microsoft and Amazon do the job for them
They want to get their bonus by cutting costs. Poor performance? Ha, you're IT. That's your problem not theirs for being smart
Re: (Score:2)
Lambda means that you don't have to give a rat's ass about servers.
Whenever someone talks about how they use Lambda, you know their setup is messed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? For large memory-requiring jobs and places where the latency of occasional cold start cases isn't acceptable, Lambda isn't the right tool. For periodic batch jobs, components in workflows, or response handling logic where some latency variability is acceptable, it's a great tool and saves a lot of costs over having dedicated but grossly underutilized EC2s.
Re: (Score:3)
For periodic batch jobs, components in workflows, or response handling logic where some latency variability is acceptable, it's a great tool and saves a lot of costs over having dedicated but grossly underutilized EC2s.
I don't think you've done a cost analysis on this. Just get yourself a $10 a month EC2 server and you're fine, and not locked into AWS.
Re: (Score:3)
Just manage your own damn IT infrastructure you lazy sumbitches, ...and if your not compiling everything by hand, you deserve what you get. work harder not smarter!
I'm not talking about managing your IT infrastructure......I literally said put it on AWS. Just keep your deployment consolidated and organized, not scattered through a bunch of different non-portable tools.
You have to be vicious about keeping your deploy tools simple, because if you don't, it will quickly become unmanageable.
Re: (Score:2)
Oversimplification.
The place I worked 2008-ish (the console-gaming part of a large international corporation) did this. They had a problem that when a new console game came out, it might be a huge hit or a flop. They either wound-up scouring sales channels in desperation trying to get more servers STAT, or else have depreciating assets collecting dust.
So, they mov
Open source (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys keep saying "open" and then they keep complaining about what others do with the source. Open means you don't get to control what other people do.
Re:Open source (Score:5, Interesting)
The way the GPL is written; Cloud providers like Amazon don't have to contribute back to the project - but that's probably not what people wanted when they came up with the GPL.
e.g. it's probably a legal bug, not a legal feature
there are a bunch of different licences, I'm just using GPL as an example here.
Re: (Score:3)
Which of Amazon's components are GPL licensed that Amazon does not publish source code for? I'll acknowledge that their virtualization servers probably use customized kernels, but it's not clear to me that they don't publish those kernel sources back to the Linux kernel community in order to support compatibility. What software are you thinking of, specifically?
The GPL license is fairly unusual in preventing the kind of "strip mining" of open source software: that is why it is referred to as "free software"
Re: (Score:3)
Which of Amazon's components are GPL licensed that Amazon does not publish source code for?
MySQL is the obvious example here, since that's what the story is about. They took the source, added some nice clustering mods, and didn't give it back. Now the CEO of MySQL is upset about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Which of Amazon's components are GPL licensed that Amazon does not publish source code for?
MySQL is the obvious example here, since that's what the story is about. They took the source, added some nice clustering mods, and didn't give it back. Now the CEO of MySQL is upset about that.
Unless Amazon distributed the code they are under no obligation to provide their code and its modifications. Even if they did they are only obligated to provide it to whomever they distributed the code; not the broader community. MySQL may not lie Amazon modifying code, running it on their own servers and selling a service based on it but they are out of luck when it comes to getting the code base.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Amazon distributed the code they are under no obligation to provide their code and its modifications.
That's not the answer to the question that was asked.
Re: (Score:2)
They took the source, added some nice clustering mods, and didn't give it back. Now the CEO of MySQL is upset about that.
But is the point. Unless Amazon distributes the code they can do what they want with it and not provide any source, MySQL CEO be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make your point on a thread where it's relevant. There are other places in this story where people made that same point.
You said
MySQL is the obvious example here, since that's what the story is about. They took the source, added some nice clustering mods, and didn't give it back. Now the CEO of MySQL is upset about that.
and I pointed out in reply he has no leg to stand on based on the GPL terms. It seems my reply is relevant to thread if your comment is as well
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is an interesting point. MySQL's server license is available at https://github.com/mysql/mysql... [github.com] . It is a _peculiar_ license. It refers to itself in some places as GPLv2, which seems nonsensical with the various other confusing and inconsistent components outlined in the same license. It also deliberately conflates the phrase "free software" with "open source software".
They are not the same thing, legally nor in common English language. The FSF published a good essay on this at https://www.gnu.org/ph [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Open source (Score:4, Informative)
Nowhere within the GPLv2 license used by MariaDB does it discuss, require or suggest contributing back to the original authors. Please take a few minutes to read or re-read the GPLv2 license. It will only take you a few minutes. Even if you think you've read it before; read it again. https://mariadb.com/kb/en/libr... [mariadb.com]
The license only covers copying, distribution and modification. It makes this explicitly clear. The essence of the license is that you have the right to use, modify and distribute the software. If you distribute the software or derivative works of the software then you must bestow the same rights on those for whom you distribute the software to.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how renting access to the software isn't the exact type of behavior intended under "distribution". I mean, I get that legally it's not, but it seems that it ethically and intentionally is.
Re: (Score:2)
It is
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely the problem Afero GPL aims to solve.
Re: (Score:3)
Open means you don't get to control what other people do.
Open means standards-based. That's the sense in which it was used by every Unix vendor everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenSolaris wasn't any closer to standards than Solaris.
Re: (Score:3)
OpenSolaris wasn't any closer to standards than Solaris.
Correct, since Solaris was already standards-based. Solaris 1.x/SunOS4 is BSD and X11 for Sun, plus NIS and Openlook. Solaris 2.x/SunOS5 is SVR4 for Sun, plus NIS+ and CDE, as well as the assorted BSD command-line utilities [optionally but typically] placed in /usr/ucb for back-compatibility with shell scripts designed for SunOS4. Bill Joy said in 1985 that Unix would eventually be dominated by an Open Source Code model, and Open Systems [wikipedia.org] was a common marketing term meaning "standards-based" which dates from
Re: (Score:2)
You're obfuscating your reply with trivia. Why did they add the word Open to Solaris if it was already standards-based? Care to guess?
Re: (Score:2)
You're obfuscating your reply with trivia. Why did they add the word Open to Solaris if it was already standards-based? Care to guess?
Because they didn't understand that Open meant standards-based, because the meaning had been deliberately obfuscated by douchenozzles with delusions of grandeur.
Re: (Score:2)
They, a longtime Unix vendor, didn't know. But of course you're here to tell them.
Re: (Score:2)
They, a longtime Unix vendor, didn't know. But of course you're here to tell them.
They named it to jerk off the ignorant in hopes of a resurgence of interest in their OS. It didn't work, because their hardware support was piss-poor. Now we have ZFS on Linux, so nothing of value was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
They were trying to convince the ignorant that it was basis t on standards?
Re:Open source (Score:5, Insightful)
Open means you don't get to control what other people do.
You're wrong. Pretty much every open source software out there has an actual license attached which controls what people can do. One of the more common, GPL, was designed so that anyone can use it but if you sold a derivative that you have to open source the derivative too. This worked well when people were primarily selling software. The problem is that now places like google and amazon are selling services not software and as their derivatives are technically not being sold, they are not required to release the source to them. The GPL probably needs to be updated to include SaaS or at least IaaS but this is easier said than done because companies like Netflix and many other companies are also SaaS and also likely use custom GPL software that isn't exposed at all to the public. The goal of the GPL isn't "if you make money we want some of it" but rather "If you make improvements, you need to open source them so we can back port them". The GPL is basically saying "No Closed Source Forks". By that definition, Google, Amazon, and are plenty of others are in clear violation. The simplest solution is probably to rewrite the GPL explicitly so that it does say "No Closed Source Forks" and make it a requirement that all Forks are publicly available on something like github.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but that's the AGPL license, which isn't at the root of most code for two reasons:
1) It's too recent, and
2) Corporations don't like it.
There's also the GPL3 license which addresses other problems, but to address *this* problem you would need to use the AGPL. And, IIUC, GPL2 code cannot be relicensed to AGPL by anyone except the original author(s).
Re: Open source (Score:2)
Don't expect your product to be successful if companies never use it
Re: (Score:2)
And, IIUC, GPL2 code cannot be relicensed to AGPL by anyone except the original author(s).
Actually the copyright holders Some projects make you sign over your code before they'll add it to the original project. Which does make re-licensing much simpler.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL doesn't require all forks to be public. It only requires that you offer to provide source to anyone who you provided with a binary. You cant stop them from redistributing the binary/source, but that's a separate issue. It's a common misconception that GPL requires all forks to be published, but it actually isn't true.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. But personally, seeing the potential for this kind of action is what caused me to prefer the AGPL, or at least the GPL3 license.
Of course, I'm a proponent of free software rather than open source.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing was, open-source wasn't prepared for the rise of cloud services. It allowed a lot of people to, using SaaS, improve and monetize OSS without giving back. It was a failure to imagine when the GPL2 was written.
Imagine if you could get the source to the AWS services because you use them. That would be a different story, and the OSS people would be happy. But because they never ship you a binary, just rent you access to it, it's a loophole in the spirit of OSS.
Re:Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a naive statement.
FOUNDED... yes... in some cases.
But on an ongoing basis, most big/useful open source projects are funded primarily by corporate sponsors, who contribute money, talent, or both. Many companies contribute in-kind services, by assigning personnel either part or full-time to open-source projects.
Another similar funding model is having a corporate parent that does consulting, hand-holding, hosting, etc. while opening the source for all. Yet another is the spin-off project that a parent organization needs for their own purposes, but is unrelated to their primary business. By open-sourcing, they get extra eyes on the project to find bugs, round-out capabilities, discover new use cases, etc.
FEW important open-source projects are purely or even primarily volunteer indie projects!
Unfortunately, this means that open source projects often have to kowtow to their corporate sponsors, and can suffer a sudden loss of talent and viability when they are "cut off" by a corporate sponsor.
A good example of this is jQuery Mobile, which the jQuery Foundation still refuses to declare dead. Adobe pulled the plug years ago, it is Dead, Jim! A distant memory in the rearview mirror, but a ghost repo and ghost website remains, sitting there snagging unwitting third-world developers who think that it is still A Thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you never read the GPL.
If MariaDB Cared (Score:4, Insightful)
1) BSD - if you want your code to be used as many places as possible (even if you don't know about it)
2) GPL - If you want to get paid when people use your code, either by keeping it free (redistribution/returning modifications), or by dual-licensing.
3) AGPL - When you want to close the loophole here.
And we can also add that the GPL3 closes the tivo and patent loopholes. Decide what you want, and choose the right license, otherwise you'll end up whining like Michael Howard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if you don't like the GPL3 then you're a freedom hating corporate tool, but that's just my opinion and irrelevant. You're free to be a cocksucking whore. That's your choice and there's nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the GPL3 and the AGPL are different licenses, and it you want both protections you are in a bit of a bind. For my purposes I actually prefer the AGPL, but, IIUC, only (some) GPL2 code can be relicensed under GPL3, and none under the AGPL, so you've got the keep lots of code in separate modules.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the GPL3 and the AGPL are different licenses, and it you want both protections you are in a bit of a bind.
What do you get from GPL3 that you don't get from AGPL? The AGPL is just GPL3 with an extra clause, right?
Re: (Score:2)
One thing you get with the GPL3 that you don't get with the AGPL is that a lot of GPL2 code can be relicensed as GPL3 code.
Re: (Score:2)
They used the AGPL for the server, but also told their users that it would not affect client code (the applications the users write). As a result, it was rather unclear whether you would even have to distribute modified server sources if you offered a public database service using the software.
Furthermore, the AGPL is only a deterrent against competition if the competition needs to modify the source code and does not want to share the modifications (assuming the the source code disclosure obligation actuall
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, the AGPL is only a deterrent against competition if the competition needs to modify the source code and does not want to share the modifications
Amazon modified MySQL quite a bit to make it run on a cloud in a cluster, but didn't return the changes. That's what the MariaDB people are upset about.
Re: If MariaDB Cared (Score:3)
MariaDB is a fork of MySQL. They had no choice but to continue using a compatible license.
Re: (Score:2)
If MariaDB cared they should have used the AGPL. This has been an issue with open source for a long time now. Solutions are available, and you need to think before using the license.
MariaDB can't change the license of the server, at least not without consent of the upstream copyright holder. That being Oracle ... well ...
Re: Been saying this for a while myself. (Score:2)
Lol. Most of us write software because someone is paying us to. As devs, we have a huge amount of influence over what licenses get chosen at our employers. MIT/BSD isn't going anywhere. In fact, the MIT license is experiencing a renaissance over the GPL.
Here's what's great about the MIT license: it provides freedom for the code. If I wanna use that code in an app I develop on the side, I can do that. If I wanna use that code at my next employer, I can do that. If I wanna wrap it up into a paid-for support c
MariaDB CEO Accuses.... (Score:3)
Fixed it for you:
"MariaDB CEO Accuses Oracle and AWS of Strip-Mining Open Source"
Can we at least get the title right? The article said NOTHING about "large cloud vendors". Only Oracle and AWS specifically.
There is no cloud (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember: there is no cloud, just other people's computers. In this case it is Amazon's computers.
And Amazon will rip you off if they can get away with it. Why is Bezos so filthy rich? Exactly.
Amazon's RDS storage is intentionally crippled. (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazon's RDS offerings are really convenient, from the perspective of making snapshots and setting up replication. But, I have never been able to push their default 'SSD' storage past 60MB/s. (PostgreSQL and Mysql) That's terrible. That's less than USB 2, and even some SD cards can do that! Our on-prem can do 180MB/s on spinning rust and around 550MB/s on (obsolete) SATA SSD. If you want anything better on RDS you have to REALLY pay a premium for IOPs and transfer, or pay a premium for way more ram and a ton of caching, in addition to external caching in the rest of your stack. I have not used Aurora on RDS, so I don't have a comparison, but I have my suspicions. It would be pretty easy to just give you a few more MB/s and make it look a whole lot better. Luckily in our case we could optimize things enough that storage performance didn't matter too much. But RDS storage performance is so pitiful that it's seriously worth considering putting your DB on a bare metal box somewhere with NVME storage and just put up with the network latency and get 50 times the storage performance (and more ram and cpu while you're at it ) at a fraction of the price.
Re: Amazon's RDS storage is intentionally crippled (Score:2)
It's not that they intentionally cripple it to rip you off. It's that you are using a shared resource. Performance needs to be consistent for everybody including those on the same server your Tennant is on. Azure is the same way with Office 365 Exchange. If an executive has 1 TB of archives in Outlook God help you! The networking is throttled on Azure so any PowerShell commands are useless
Giving back? (Score:2)
The guy's complaining about "giving back", but I'm 100% certain there are people working on MariaDB who haven't "given back" to the artists who produced the music and movies they listen to and watch.
The old saying about leading by example holds true. If you want someone to abide by your licensing agreements and "give back" to the community, you have to start with yourself and your employees (or the equivalent version). If you think it's acceptable to ignore all the copyright laws and licensing which comes
What a standard (Score:2)
So if anyone who works on your IP in any sense has ever violated anyone else's IP, you have no right to complain. So when those MariaDB people pirated Black Panther, the fact that one guy who worked at some point in his life listened to music he downloaded illegally makes the whole movie fair game? Cause that's stupid and your point is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a flat out lie. There is a reason the only people using that garbage are the same folks still using Delphi
Re: (Score:2)
We use it in production because it outperforms everything else.
Do you have benchmarks?
Re: Firebird is still better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dumbest shit I have heard all day. Firebird is a relic with no direction and no discernible advantage over *ANY* other RDBMS. Its SMP support is still "being worked on". It doesn't even have a reasonable mechanism for multiple processes to communicate with one another. Spin locks were how concurrency was done for the longest time.
Like I said, the only people still using it are legacy folks or the suckers still paying Embarcadero for their crummy "platform".
Re: (Score:2)
Firebird is a relic with no direction
...which just released the first beta of the fourth version...OK.
and no discernible advantage over *ANY* other RDBMS
No discernible advantage, like basically zero configuration, making it suitable for hassle-free embedding into application products?
Its SMP support is still "being worked on".
As opposed to all the other software which will never ever change its architecture again? Software that isn't being worked on is software that is dead.
Re:I don't see problem here (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no law against being anti-social, so they are free to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The spirit of GPL is to allow the user to do anything, Amazon in this case is the user.
Re: (Score:3)
The spirit of GPL is to allow the user to do anything,
That's not really true, anything but deny others their freedom. Amazon made changes to mysql and didn't release them to the public. (Legally they don't have to, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLv2 allows you to take from the labors of others without giving back. It's right there in the preamble:
This was not some failure of Stallman and Moglen to consider and incorporate a term into the GPL -- it is an intended featur
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, it's as if you didn't even read the GPL. Why did you ignore the stated intentions? Right at the top, the intentions are stated:
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
The stated intention is to make sure the u
Re: (Score:2)
I have. You're arguing that Stallman and Moglen made the same mistake not once, but twice, years apart, and after seeing exactly how the GPL v2 operated.
From your own link explaining the four freedoms:
Re: (Score:2)
The 'spirit' of the GPL? What is this - poetry class?
No, it's Slashdot, didn't you notice? Enjoy your stay, get an account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Open Source does not require anyone to give bac (Score:5, Informative)
Bascially, all your "customers" are required to do is share the source if they share binaries (in the case of the GPL 2.0) or not remove the license information (in the case of BSD-like licenses). If you can't live with that, don't publish under those licenses.
The problem is that places like Amazon *ARE* "sharing the binary" as a service but then not sharing the modified source. The GPL was written when the primary way of sharing software was via binaries not services.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the origin of the company promoting it, I think you're right.
Re: (Score:3)
how does this situation "prove the superiority of BSD"? Amazon could do the same thing if maria were BSD licensed.
Amazon isn't prevented from what they're doing by maria's GPL 2 license. These are just whiners. Whining stops nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact... this kind of service has always been held up as a shining example of how businesses are *supposed* to make money off of GPL.