3 ms·
Wow, now pulsar as well. As someone who isn't full-time trying to keep up with this tsunami of names it's just impossible to keep up. Apache (or someone, anyone
by ramraj07 6y ago
Wow, now pulsar as well. As someone who isn't full-time trying to keep up with this tsunami of names it's just impossible to keep up. Apache (or someone, anyone please) needs to make a matrix of all their own competing technologies and what the actual differences are between them. It's just impossible!
- taywrobel 6y agoI feel ya. Software is a world that’s constantly evolving. Apache is great at software engineering, but sorely lacking in product design. Because open source software is almost definitionally not a product, but a tool. With that comes increased bifurcation of the tooling when different requirements arise, and increased complexity with running it. Kafka and pulsar both have zookeeper as an external dependency, for instance. Pulsar has an extra dependency even in bookkeeper, one of the few things I’ll readily fault it for. It’s a stark contrast to openly commercial products like CockroachDB, which has a single static binary, with symmetric nodes, and built in management UI. It’s a product, not a tool. FWIW, Apache has a project directory - https://projects.apache.org/projects.html https://projects.apache.org/projects.html But it’s a far cry from a comparison matrix as you (and I think many other confused and disheartened engineers) desire.
- jlokier 6y agoIt's not due to bifurcation. It's because Apache "adopts" products that are created independently by other companies who then want to open source their product, and leave to it someone else to look after. Kafka was created at LinkedIn and eventually donated to Apache Foundation. Pulsar was created at Yahoo and eventually donated to Apache Foundation.