Google F1 vs. FoundationDB's SQL Layer

The tough sell for me is -- I don't see the source code. 10 whitepapers and 15 blog posts comparing to Google doesn't add to credibility. That works for investors and for fun recreational reading. Show me how you do write locking, let's see your cluster membership module.

Perhaps, they want to be Oracle or DB2, that's fine, and I understand that, different market perhaps. But they don't have the credibility those companies do. Even Google's F1 has more credibility because well, because of brand name recognition.

Look at these other DB products I might want to choose, all with available source code: RethinkDB, PostreSQL, Riak, CouchDB, SQLite, MariaDB, MongoDB, Couchbase, Cassandra.

At this point, databases are a bit like operating system, there is no way I am picking a closed source operating system if I have a choice. It is just too critical of a component to be closed under a sealed lid.

Yes they all have different features and maybe FoundationDB does something better, I will still put it last in whatever category, just because I want to be able to look at how it works.

My investment in these guys was announced this morning. I've been talking with them for over a year, one of my other portfolio companies is using it in production and I can't say enough good things about the rigor used to develop it. Honestly it is easy to be skeptical of their claims, but I think that if you dig in you will find that they are true.

https://foundationdb.com/blog/foundationdb-raises-17-million...

An ordered key-value store with consistent secondary indices and simple transactions covers the needs of lots of applications (as e.g. the Google App Engine data store proves). If FoundationDB can indeed deliver consistency without compromising performance and scalability, they will probably have a bright future.

This reads like a thinly disguised ad to me.

"We all know that Google's stuff is excellent. Now, here's how we're doing the same thing..."