| ▲ | hu3 15 hours ago |
| I too am weary of VC incentives but: 1) It's MIT licensed. Including the test suite which is something lacking in SQLite: https://github.com/tursodatabase/turso 2) They have a paid cloud option to drive income from: https://turso.tech/pricing |
|
| ▲ | simonw 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "Including the test suite which is something lacking in SQLite" That's not entirely true. SQLite has a TON of tests that are part of the public domain project: https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/tree/master/test They do have a test suite that's private which I understand to be more about testing for different hardware - they sell access to that for companies that want SQLite to work on their custom embedded hardware, details here: https://sqlite.org/th3.html > SQLite Test Harness #3 (hereafter "TH3") is one of three test harnesses used for testing SQLite. |
|
| ▲ | MobiusHorizons 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 2) They have a paid cloud option to drive income from: I’ve been confused by this for a while. What is it competing with? Surely not SQLite, being client server defeats all the latency benefits. I feel it would be considered as an alternative to cloud Postgres offerings, and it seems unlikely they could compete on features. Genuinely curious, but is there any sensible use case for this product, or do they just catch people who read SQLite was good on hacker news, but didn’t understand any of the why. |
| |
| ▲ | 3eb7988a1663 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The thing that cooks my noodle - who are these insane people who want to beta test a new database? Yes, all databases could have world destroying data loss/corruption, but I have significantly more confidence in a player than has been on the market for many years. | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The article talks about this. If you have a project that starts small and an in-process DB is fine, but you end up needing to scale up then you don't have to switch DBs. | | |
| ▲ | gizzlon an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | So the usecase is: I started with SQLite, but now I have too many terrabytes to fit on one server? That seems.. very uncommon. And since moving it out of process, and even to another network, is going to make it much much much slower. You're going to need a rewrite anyway | |
| ▲ | MobiusHorizons 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks. Serves me right for commenting without reading the article. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | g947o 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Elasticsearch was license under Apache 2.0 until they switched. That says enough. |
| |
|
| ▲ | cozzyd 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Are there any VC-funded open source projects that didn't attempt rug pulls? (There must be, right?) |
| |
| ▲ | curuinor 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | metabase.com, but metabase is intended for business analyst types and is AGPL, with shenanigans for embedding and an enterprise edition thing | | |
| ▲ | EdwardDiego 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Man, I've seen the SQL Metabase emits, it's not great. Like, doing a massive join across 10 tables and selecting all the columns from all the tables - to only return the average of one column from one table. |
| |
| ▲ | imiric 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Grafana has been a pretty good steward of OSS. Whether you like their products or not, they've been able to balance the OSS and commercial offerings fairly well. | | | |
| ▲ | sophacles 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whether or not they attempt rug pulls, or other slimy measures to extort money from entrenched users... this VC backed OSS startups have given us some nice things. People fork the permissively licensed code when the scumbuckets get too smelly and the company goes on to irrelevancy while people use the actually OSS version. |
|
|
| ▲ | iamrobertismo 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The MIT licensing makes this even less trustworthy. I can image a major cloud or fly.io just proprietary forking them as a service, as cloud providers have done for years. |
| |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | So what? The MIT licensed original will still be there, you don't lose out on anything if that happens. And also, SQLite itself is public domain, so by your logic we shouldn't trust SQLite either. Which is crazy. | | |
| ▲ | iamrobertismo 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't understand you reply here. Database startups have always had the consistent issue of cloud providers providing managed solutions without contributing back. It is why many moved to or use the AGPLv3 and why there was the whole SSPL controversy in the first place. Running a successful open source database startup is not trivial. None of this applies to SQLite. | | |
| ▲ | MobiusHorizons 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the point is that that sounds like a potential problem for turso, but it’s not really a problem for everyone else unless some sort of vendor lockin would prevent using open source alternatives. But given the strong compatibility story with the SQLite file format implied already that just doesn’t seem credible. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | sam_lowry_ 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > test suite which is something lacking in SQLite You must be kidding. Last time I checked, sqlite was mostly extensive test suites. |
| |
| ▲ | jzebedee 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's covered in the article. The full SQLite test suite isn't open source, so you (the third party) don't have the same confidence in your modifications as the SQLite team does. | | |
| ▲ | j16sdiz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 1. Only if you modify it. There is a free test suit, and You can license the non-free test suit. 2. Compare to the test in Turso, the test in Turso is just kids toy. |
| |
| ▲ | HAMSHAMA 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think they meant that the test suite is not open source. You’re right that it is extensive. |
|
