4 ms·
I know, I get that, but long-term this seems like non-solution that won't actually do anything. It just ties it to their service offering instead of Amazon's. I
by cycloptic 6y ago
I know, I get that, but long-term this seems like non-solution that won't actually do anything. It just ties it to their service offering instead of Amazon's. If they decide to sell out to Amazon eventually they'll probably be able to bid the price higher. That's good for them, and if their customers are fine with it, then that's good for them too, but let's not pretend it's something more. I know in current times I certainly wouldn't trust a database with performance/uptime guarantees, where the authors are hiding the implementation from public scrutiny.
If you're going to tell me your company is actually worth a trillion quid and can really compete with AWS then I would see your point, but otherwise I can't see a way that this is going to make the market better for anyone besides the other small fraction of companies that have come up with similar ideas of banning Amazon. (Full disclosure: I'm in the same boat and I personally refuse to purchase any products or services from Amazon, but I acknowledge I'm in the severe minority)
- mfreed 6y agowhere the authors are hiding the implementation from public scrutiny We agree that such visibility is a good thing! All of our source code (both Apache-2 and TSL) has always been public on github: https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb
- cycloptic 6y agoSorry I should have been more clear. It appears you still do that because it's the bare minimum you need to do to keep customers from leaving for Amazon. But if that's where you stop then I can't see how it's solving the problem.