grumpydba

> Small native binaries don't seem like much of an advantage when writing servers.

However when deploying server binaries it's a substancial advantage. End users like them. Ops like them.

They never said that they had to use c because go is not a systems language, so your assertion looks wrong. They wanted to avoid using unsafe. In c everything is unsafe by the way, so it makes it less of a systems language?

> As we wanted to keep unsafe code to a minimum, we instead chose to employ the C code from the original driver as an opportunity to present cgo.

It's not for performance reasons. I think you misread. Also the driver is pure go now:

https://github.com/ixy-languages/ixy.go

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18399389.

It's been done. Performs well.

> GPLv2 and v3 gave hobbyists, students, and anti-corporate hackers a means to feel as though their work resists the evil empire of the software industry, while in fact serving it up with unpaid work product.

I got linux and the GNU userland for free. I used it to learn and it got me a job. Of course I contribute to GPL projects. It's not unpaid work, it's paid in code.

It's funny that he chose mongodb as an example. They require a contributor to sign the CLA and give all ownership of the code to mongodb. This is effectively unpaid work, more than the GPL.

These new unfree licenses are the most restrictive the VC friendly lawyers can think of to maintain an usurped "open source" moniker while trying to push clients to buy commercial licenses.

To stay in France, it's a bit as if you said the cathedrals construction was a total failure basing your judgment on the Beauvais cathedral which also suffered of the second system effect.

What percentage of the waste is radiating for 10000 years? And how radioactive is it? Without facts, precise facts to back it up your statement looks irrational indeed.

I don't judge a software on an alpha release.

Because of the irrational fear of nuclear.

It's the first of its generation and is quite a failure on many aspects. It's not representative of all the nuclear reactors in France, far from it. Thus it is quite insignificant.

> Maybe you don't owe that to the closers-of-source-code

You assume I have something against closers of source code. Do not assume bad faith please.

I don't like closers of source code who say "Yes, We're Open (source)". https://sentry.io/_/open-source/ or https://sentry.io/welcome/ "Sentry provides open-source and hosted error monitoring".

This is not honest. I think honesty when selling software is important.

I'll take note for the future and will try to present the facts in a more politically correct way. This is an american forum afterall.

That's why the gpl without CLA remains the best collaborative platform. That's a lesson for me, Stallman was right, as they say.

Sure, but those are only weasel words and blatant lies. Talking about "Commercializing Open-Source", when you are in fact closing your source code is dishonest. And I think HN needs honesty. Even with some bluntness.

A paragraph of this announcement is literally titled "Commercializing Open-Source". This is a blatant lie.

> Yes I'm generally happy when I get new stuff for free, but I don't expect that to always happen.

Sure. But when a product is advertised as open source, I expect it to be true.

Oracle has been free riding red hat with unbreakable Linux, for years. Then red hat got bought for 30 billions. When you are confident about you ability to outsmart the competition and keep your customers, you don't have to use those new semi-open licenses. They are a legal risk for anyone who copies or reuses the code.

> You can still run the software, for free, in your business. You can still change the software, for free, and run that in your business. You can still fork the software, from today, and do what you want with it.

You cannot reuse and publish. Matter of fact, even reading it and taking inspiration from it is risky. Words from an IP lawyer I know. It's a proprietary license. There is no shame in that. So don't try to act like you are still an open source company. One has to make a good living. That's not what I was criticizing.

> It's hostile to entities that may want to take others open source work and provide a business around that work.

Consider yourself happy Torvalds didn't think this way. Or Guido. What's your dev environment?

Those are deceptive tactics. How can one expect to spin it and make knowledgable people swallow it?

Hence the huge need for nuclear power.

No we don't. We use ordinateur.

No you don't lose them. Fdw supports push down of where clauses, only selects the required columns. You can also create views in clickhouse to make sur the joins are processed there.

> Anyone considering a “time series database” should first set up a modern commercial column store, partition their tables on the time column, and time their workload. For any scan-oriented workload, it will crush a row store like Timescale.

Or you can set up a clickhouse instance. It's a seriously promising and underrated product.

In 5 years from now, will there still be svners?

> It’s things like this that keep us paying $millions for SQL Server Enterpise vs. Postgres.

Using these millions to better design your applications is better in the long run. You can totally live without those with a good schema and better queries.

I think features like column store and always on are worth more that those band-aid features aimed at pleasing ugly ERPs.

It's on yum.postgresql.org, the official repo. Come on!

Gross....

> Well that settles it. Next time a pizza traditionalist blasts me for having pineapple on my pizza, I'll counter that he shouldn't have tomatoes on theirs.

I don't think it's a matter of tradition. It's a matter of taste.

> Yes, maybe there will be built in automatic fail over in a few years so you don't have to hack it together using a bunch of scripts.

thanks microsoft !!

https://github.com/citusdata/pg_auto_failover

How to bake a better loaf: https://youtu.be/8B_7AFYmkYo

It's a trade-off. Programmer's productivity versus theorically perfect ownership handling.

I think that rust fills the needs of applications with extreme requirements. A browser is in that niche. Not all software is.

Thus most of the time you don't have to inflict yourself the pain to work with it.