5 ms·

[flagged]

by saadn92 5mo ago

[flagged]

nazcan 5mo ago
The favourite model I've seen is the main branch is free, licensed MIT or whatever, but if you want release artifacts that are tested - then you pay for it. You can always compile your own.
elAhmo 5mo ago
It didn't go dark, and doesn't seem that critical in general. General idea still stands, but it is not like this just disappeared and backups will stop working.
rowanG077 5mo ago
Why does sqlite not suffer from the same risk?
- lmm 5mo ago
  They have more sponsors/clients so a single company changing direction wouldn't kill them. They also sell directly if you want to buy from them. But ultimately the risk still exists.
- Matl 5mo ago
  Because it's a single file you can back up like any other?
  - rowanG077 5mo ago
    I interpreted it as the problem being that the technology may end up unsupported. I mean you can also keep using pgbackrest now. It's not like the code is gone.
    - Matl 5mo ago
      Well, yes, I meant that you don't need any 'special' tooling for Sqlite, whereas you do for pg.
- cornstalks 5mo ago
  SQLite doesn’t depend on donations. They have a consortium, sell licenses (it is open source but some companies like the explicit CYA), sell support contracts, sell an aviation-grade test harness, and sell extensions. Of course there is always the risk it goes out of business like any other company, but it’s not funded like your typical small open source project and doesn’t even allow open contributions (not necessarily a bad thing IMO but it’s just a totally different type of project).
  - rowanG077 5mo ago
    pgbackrest also was part of an organization from what I understood from the post. The organization got acquired. I don't see how sqlite is shielded (or any project really). They could get acquired. They could not have enough customers. They could go the wrong directions and lose customers. They might have a few high profile bugs so that customers lose faith in them.
    - cornstalks 5mo ago
      PGBackRest was sponsored by some specific organizations, but not owned by them, and PGBackRest was not their product. SQLite is in a whole different league when it comes to funding, corporate support, etc. There are commercial contracts directly tied to its ongoing support and development. As far as I understand SQLite is Hwaci’s bread and butter.
  - registeredcorn 5mo ago
    Is there a reason why more OSS projects don't follow this model? It sounds like you are saying that there are clear advantages here that other OSS projects lack.
    - qq66 5mo ago
      There are business models that work for the extraordinarily popular open source projects (Linux, SQLite, etc.) that don't work for the "well-used piece of infrastructure" projects, even though that category is very important in aggregate
- doctoboggan 5mo ago
  Its an LLM comment, don't search too deeply for logical consistency

[flagged]

by saadn92 5mo ago

[flagged]

The favourite model I've seen is the main branch is free, licensed MIT or whatever, but if you want release artifacts that are tested - then you pay for it. You can always compile your own.

elAhmo 5mo ago

It didn't go dark, and doesn't seem that critical in general. General idea still stands, but it is not like this just disappeared and backups will stop working.

rowanG077 5mo ago

Why does sqlite not suffer from the same risk?

lmm 5mo ago
They have more sponsors/clients so a single company changing direction wouldn't kill them. They also sell directly if you want to buy from them. But ultimately the risk still exists.
Matl 5mo ago
Because it's a single file you can back up like any other?
- rowanG077 5mo ago
  I interpreted it as the problem being that the technology may end up unsupported. I mean you can also keep using pgbackrest now. It's not like the code is gone.
  - Matl 5mo ago
    Well, yes, I meant that you don't need any 'special' tooling for Sqlite, whereas you do for pg.
cornstalks 5mo ago
SQLite doesn’t depend on donations. They have a consortium, sell licenses (it is open source but some companies like the explicit CYA), sell support contracts, sell an aviation-grade test harness, and sell extensions. Of course there is always the risk it goes out of business like any other company, but it’s not funded like your typical small open source project and doesn’t even allow open contributions (not necessarily a bad thing IMO but it’s just a totally different type of project).
- rowanG077 5mo ago
  pgbackrest also was part of an organization from what I understood from the post. The organization got acquired. I don't see how sqlite is shielded (or any project really). They could get acquired. They could not have enough customers. They could go the wrong directions and lose customers. They might have a few high profile bugs so that customers lose faith in them.
  - cornstalks 5mo ago
    PGBackRest was sponsored by some specific organizations, but not owned by them, and PGBackRest was not their product. SQLite is in a whole different league when it comes to funding, corporate support, etc. There are commercial contracts directly tied to its ongoing support and development. As far as I understand SQLite is Hwaci’s bread and butter.
- registeredcorn 5mo ago
  Is there a reason why more OSS projects don't follow this model? It sounds like you are saying that there are clear advantages here that other OSS projects lack.
  - qq66 5mo ago
    There are business models that work for the extraordinarily popular open source projects (Linux, SQLite, etc.) that don't work for the "well-used piece of infrastructure" projects, even though that category is very important in aggregate
doctoboggan 5mo ago
Its an LLM comment, don't search too deeply for logical consistency