But almost all of your posts and benchmarks are based on the closed source version of Timescale. Everywhere I have seen it is always recommend to use the closed source version to get decent performance out of it.
Just to clarify: Nothing on Timescale is closed-source. It is all source available, all on Github. Some of it is Apache2 licensed, some of it is Timescale Licensed. And it is all free.
While some people on HN feel that this is an impurity they can’t live with, I personally think it’s a small price to pay to enable development of TS to continue. In my opinion, claiming that it’s closed source is somewhat dogmatic. Many open source licenses have some kind of restrictions on use; the GPL comes to mind.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
This license turns out to be very difficult to use for almost developer.
Do you want amazing things? Everything can't be "free as in beer" wtf does that even mean, i don't get free beer from anywhere.
That's what "free as in beer" means -- it's a well-established phrase meaning "zero monetary cost": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
In the case of the non-Apache-licensed version of TimescaleDB, you're allowed to use the software without payment, and you can distribute unmodified copies. But you're essentially forbidden from letting users define their own schemas, or from modifying it or reusing components unless your modified version imposes that same restriction. (The exception is if you agree to transfer ownership of your changes back to Timescale.)
Nobody's saying that Timescale can't build a non-open-source database, only that they should be clear about which parts are actually open. In my opinion, describing it on the homepage as an "open-source relational database" and then promoting it by benchmarking the proprietary version is at least a little bit misleading.