5 ms·

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9330482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9330482

by sydthrowaway 4y ago

kzzzznot 4y ago
Interestingly about a year after that conversation BitKeeper was made open source
- stevekemp 4y ago
  For completeness here's where that was discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11667494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11667494
- cryptonector 4y ago
  At some point you realize that you can no longer monetize some proprietary code you have. Now what? You basically have two options: let it die, or open source it. Pride dictates that you'll want to open source it. In the world of infrastructure software, you have to keep moving forward because open source will replace your proprietary infrastructure software eventually. Stay still, milk that cow, and you'll lose the cow. It's that simple. Or better yet: develop a solid open source monetization plan to begin with. Not that that's easy! But D. Richard Hipp managed. Thinking about it, why couldn't BK have been the SQLite3 of DVCS? The answer is probably that McVoy didn't think about the SQLite model, probably because SQLite was the first to succeed at it, and that came after the BK->Git migration, or at least the realization that SQLite had a great business model came later. To recap, the SQLite model is this: a) make a great open source project, b) make a proprietary test suite for it with 100% branch coverage, c) convince the world that (b) exists, d) let them come to you for features and bug fixes, e) form a consortium to get paid through. BK coulda been a contendah!
  - zoomablemind 4y ago
    >...To recap, the SQLite model is this: a) make a great open source project, b) make a proprietary test suite for it with 100% branch coverage, c) convince the world that (b) exists, d) let them come to you for features and bug fixes, e) form a consortium to get paid through. Where does this recap come from? My understanding was that SQLite was initially created in a context for a client that needed assurances of correctness, thus the extensive testing suite. As for the revenue, there's a proprietary extension to support fully encrypted db and access. This is licensed and supported.
    - cryptonector 4y ago
      > Where does this recap come from? Is it not true? > My understanding was that SQLite was initially created... Ah, you think I meant that that was the SQLite model on day 1. But no, I meant that this is what it became. > As for the revenue, there's a proprietary extension to support fully encrypted db and access. This is licensed and supported. Consortium membership costs money. That money pays for the dev team.
password4321 4y ago
Every time he pops in he gets asked about this, apparently... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26204218#26205688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26204218#26205688 (2021)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9330482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9330482

kzzzznot 4y ago

Interestingly about a year after that conversation BitKeeper was made open source

stevekemp 4y ago
For completeness here's where that was discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11667494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11667494
cryptonector 4y ago
At some point you realize that you can no longer monetize some proprietary code you have. Now what? You basically have two options: let it die, or open source it. Pride dictates that you'll want to open source it. In the world of infrastructure software, you have to keep moving forward because open source will replace your proprietary infrastructure software eventually. Stay still, milk that cow, and you'll lose the cow. It's that simple. Or better yet: develop a solid open source monetization plan to begin with. Not that that's easy! But D. Richard Hipp managed. Thinking about it, why couldn't BK have been the SQLite3 of DVCS? The answer is probably that McVoy didn't think about the SQLite model, probably because SQLite was the first to succeed at it, and that came after the BK->Git migration, or at least the realization that SQLite had a great business model came later. To recap, the SQLite model is this: a) make a great open source project, b) make a proprietary test suite for it with 100% branch coverage, c) convince the world that (b) exists, d) let them come to you for features and bug fixes, e) form a consortium to get paid through. BK coulda been a contendah!
- zoomablemind 4y ago
  >...To recap, the SQLite model is this: a) make a great open source project, b) make a proprietary test suite for it with 100% branch coverage, c) convince the world that (b) exists, d) let them come to you for features and bug fixes, e) form a consortium to get paid through. Where does this recap come from? My understanding was that SQLite was initially created in a context for a client that needed assurances of correctness, thus the extensive testing suite. As for the revenue, there's a proprietary extension to support fully encrypted db and access. This is licensed and supported.
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    > Where does this recap come from? Is it not true? > My understanding was that SQLite was initially created... Ah, you think I meant that that was the SQLite model on day 1. But no, I meant that this is what it became. > As for the revenue, there's a proprietary extension to support fully encrypted db and access. This is licensed and supported. Consortium membership costs money. That money pays for the dev team.

password4321 4y ago

Every time he pops in he gets asked about this, apparently... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26204218#26205688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26204218#26205688 (2021)