3 ms·
That initial gamble on optimizing for engineering ease-of-use But that was not a clever gambit. They had a bad product that they told a lot of lies about. That
by gaius 9y ago
That initial gamble on optimizing for engineering ease-of-use
But that was not a clever gambit. They had a bad product that they told a lot of lies about. That they got rich doing that is a sad indictment of our industry.
- threeseed 9y agoHave you actually the product ? And be honest here. Because it was never a truly awful product. Yes it had some bugs but it was no worse than what we were seeing with Oracle or Cassandra. And if you call marketing blurbs "lies" then I am surprised you manage to survive day to day at all. PostgreSQL calls their database the "most advanced", Oracle calls theirs "#1 Database for Cloud Scale Simplicity". It's just regular marketing fluff.
- brianwawok 9y agoI used it. It was awful. I cannot think of a single use case for mongo.
- gaius 9y agoYep. Project to replace a single 24-core, 24G, SAN-connected Oracle box with 10 48-core, 96G boxes with internal SSD running Mongo. The Oracle box was faster and had a DBA look at it maybe once a week. The Mongo setup required a full time team of a half dozen people. It's a complete joke. And their marketing lies included "you don't need a DBA"..