3 ms·
Yeah, that's a bad look for both dgraph and the new company imo. What guarantees the same thing ran by the same people won't have the same issues again? Not on
by totony 5y ago
Yeah, that's a bad look for both dgraph and the new company imo. What guarantees the same thing ran by the same people won't have the same issues again?
Not only that, if the core team moves to the open source product to "rebuild" the same features, isn't that way too dangerous IP-wise?
This is also one of the reasons I didn't use dgraph: Open source core doesn't work. All the companies that were sold to now have nowhere to go for support.
- PhoenixReborn 5y agoI would respectfully disagree that open core doesn’t work - companies like Confluent, Databricks, MongoDB have shown that you can succeed with open core. DGraph I think tried to do too much rather than focusing on graph databases, which caused the commercial product to fail.
- totony 5y agoI think an issue with dgraph is their "open core" didn't include a lot of things you'd expect in a "core" DB (iirc backups, multi tenancy & acl). I'm not familiar with confluent & co. but imo for "open core" to succeed you need a product attractive enough to gain market share, and then you can have extra features for commercial use. But then why not just make it completely open source to gain even more market share and offer support contracts (eg redhat & co)?