6 ms·

Oracle is prohibited from selling to Huawei - that is why they have built an alternative. And OpenGauss is based on Postgres: https://gitee.com/opengauss/open

Oracle is prohibited from selling to Huawei - that is why they have built an alternative. And OpenGauss is based on Postgres: https://gitee.com/opengauss/openGauss-server https://gitee.com/opengauss/openGauss-server

hedora 2y ago
I looked into OpenGauss a while back. It seems really solid. Among other things, they added various compatibility modes for stuff like software that targets Oracle. They have a ton of customers, and a ton of revenue. The US-imposed export ban has completely backfired in this case. It's equivalent to China forcing everyone in their own market to subsidize direct competitors to US firms. The electric car subsidies DC is complaining about are nothing compared to this. I remember when the export ban took effect. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out that the outcome would be a much stronger Chinese technology sector. I can't decide if US leadership is really that dumb, or if there's some sort of conflict-of-interest / corruption / coercion at play.
- LadyCailin 2y ago
  I don’t think the goal was ever to bankrupt Huawei so some US form could swoop in. It was and is about national security. Do you think China wouldn’t bug equipment sent to the US? That seems like a bad bet.
  - nikster 2y ago
    It's about control - Huawei was taking over too much tech for the deep state's taste. Deep state is bugging American devices so they have a very good reason to believe the other side is doing the same - evidence or not. Unfortunately in this case, I think the deep state is really that dumb. They did not foresee the consequences. They expected Huawei to fade away with a whimper - and if you read the article, it was a pretty close call, so the expectation wasn't entirely unfounded. Motive was curbing Chinese state actor influence and also industry, ie preventing Huawei from crushing Google or Apple. it's not very smart but it's kind of how they think about it. On both sides, tech companies and state intelligence services are walking hand in glove. It's not about devices being bugged per se, it's about siphoning more and more data into their own data centers, controlling more and more of the info highways, and so on. Potential backdoors only play a very minor role IMO - anything can be backdoored these days, and state actors anywhere have the resources to get into anything. It's more about the front doors, ie our chinese security camera talking to chinese servers... large scale data collection that's not hidden.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    If that were the case, the US government would not ban US companies from selling to equipment and software to Huawei. After all, if all the US were worried about were back doored Huawei equipment (of which there's no evidence), why would it care if Huawei phones in China use Google services?
    - hedora 2y ago
      Also, if the goal wasn't to bankrupt Huawei, what was it? Force them to become market leaders across a broader part of the technology sector? That's been the effect of the export ban. How was it supposed to reduce the amount of wiretapping, etc. they can do?
      - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        I'd also like to know how nabbing the Huawei CFO (who also happens to be the daughter of the founder) in Vancouver fits in with just preventing bugged equipment (again, for which there's no evidence) from being installed in US networks. The US has gone after Huawei in such an all-encompassing manner that it's impossible to maintain the fiction that this is just about preventing Huawei from spying on the US (something that Huawei has never done anyways, as far as anyone knows).
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  It’s true. Decoupling leads to the fragility before open trade. People forget part of the reason for global free trade was intertwining of economies leading to critical dependency, which goes in two ways. By forcibly severing that you create a decoupling, which leads to more unilateralism, which leads to more war.
justinclift 2y ago
Looks like they've switched from the PostgreSQL license to something called the MulanPSL-2.0 license. Looks like it's an adaptation of the PostgreSQL license, but that's from my non-expert eyes looking over it. :)
- anticensor 2y ago
  Yes, it is slightly modified Postgres licence with GPL 3 style patent clause.

hedora 2y ago

I looked into OpenGauss a while back. It seems really solid. Among other things, they added various compatibility modes for stuff like software that targets Oracle. They have a ton of customers, and a ton of revenue. The US-imposed export ban has completely backfired in this case. It's equivalent to China forcing everyone in their own market to subsidize direct competitors to US firms. The electric car subsidies DC is complaining about are nothing compared to this. I remember when the export ban took effect. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out that the outcome would be a much stronger Chinese technology sector. I can't decide if US leadership is really that dumb, or if there's some sort of conflict-of-interest / corruption / coercion at play.

LadyCailin 2y ago
I don’t think the goal was ever to bankrupt Huawei so some US form could swoop in. It was and is about national security. Do you think China wouldn’t bug equipment sent to the US? That seems like a bad bet.
- nikster 2y ago
  It's about control - Huawei was taking over too much tech for the deep state's taste. Deep state is bugging American devices so they have a very good reason to believe the other side is doing the same - evidence or not. Unfortunately in this case, I think the deep state is really that dumb. They did not foresee the consequences. They expected Huawei to fade away with a whimper - and if you read the article, it was a pretty close call, so the expectation wasn't entirely unfounded. Motive was curbing Chinese state actor influence and also industry, ie preventing Huawei from crushing Google or Apple. it's not very smart but it's kind of how they think about it. On both sides, tech companies and state intelligence services are walking hand in glove. It's not about devices being bugged per se, it's about siphoning more and more data into their own data centers, controlling more and more of the info highways, and so on. Potential backdoors only play a very minor role IMO - anything can be backdoored these days, and state actors anywhere have the resources to get into anything. It's more about the front doors, ie our chinese security camera talking to chinese servers... large scale data collection that's not hidden.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  If that were the case, the US government would not ban US companies from selling to equipment and software to Huawei. After all, if all the US were worried about were back doored Huawei equipment (of which there's no evidence), why would it care if Huawei phones in China use Google services?
  - hedora 2y ago
    Also, if the goal wasn't to bankrupt Huawei, what was it? Force them to become market leaders across a broader part of the technology sector? That's been the effect of the export ban. How was it supposed to reduce the amount of wiretapping, etc. they can do?
    - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
      I'd also like to know how nabbing the Huawei CFO (who also happens to be the daughter of the founder) in Vancouver fits in with just preventing bugged equipment (again, for which there's no evidence) from being installed in US networks. The US has gone after Huawei in such an all-encompassing manner that it's impossible to maintain the fiction that this is just about preventing Huawei from spying on the US (something that Huawei has never done anyways, as far as anyone knows).
fnordpiglet 2y ago
It’s true. Decoupling leads to the fragility before open trade. People forget part of the reason for global free trade was intertwining of economies leading to critical dependency, which goes in two ways. By forcibly severing that you create a decoupling, which leads to more unilateralism, which leads to more war.

justinclift 2y ago

Looks like they've switched from the PostgreSQL license to something called the MulanPSL-2.0 license. Looks like it's an adaptation of the PostgreSQL license, but that's from my non-expert eyes looking over it. :)

anticensor 2y ago
Yes, it is slightly modified Postgres licence with GPL 3 style patent clause.