4 ms·

Their goal is to run this on their own cloud. Despite their lofty claims about community building, their projects are very much about forwarding their use case

Their goal is to run this on their own cloud. Despite their lofty claims about community building, their projects are very much about forwarding their use case. Given that SQLite is public domain, they're not required to give anything back. So, it's very cool that they're making parts of their tech FOSS. But I've yet to see anything coming from them that isn't “just because we need it, and SQLite wouldn't do it for us.” There's little concern about making things useful to others, and very little community consensus about any of it. https://turso.tech/ https://turso.tech/

tracker1 2y ago
Of course they are scratching their own itch, so to speak. Thats what companies do. I think the fact that they are doing so much in the open is the indication of good stewardship itself. I'm not sure what else they would do or release that they didn't need internally. For that matter, I'm not really aware of many significant contributions to FLOSS at all that aren't initially intended for company use, that's kinda how it works. Where I'm surprised here is how much secret sauce Turso is sharing at all.
- ncruces 2y ago
  I have no problem with them scratching their itch. That's par for the course. I'm salty about them describing the SQLite licensing, development model, and code of ethics as almost toxic, setting up a separate entity with a website and a manifesto promising to do better, and then folding “libSQL into the Turso family” within the year. They forked, played politics, added a few features (with some ill-considered incompatibilities), and properly documented zero of them. And I'm salty because I'm actually interested in some of those features, and they're impossible to use without proper documentation. I've had much better luck interacting with SQLite developers in the SQLite forum.
  - avinassh 2y ago
    disclosure: I work at Turso > code of ethics as almost toxic This is simply not true. Can you tell me where it is being said so? > then folding “libSQL into the Turso family” within the year. libSQL was always part of Turso. So, I don't get your point. > They forked, played politics, added a few features (with some ill-considered incompatibilities), and properly documented zero of them. Again this is incorrect. There are some docs here: https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/tree/main/docs https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/tree/main/docs I am really not sure why are you so angry about libSQL.
    - ncruces 2y ago
      > This is simply not true. Can you tell me where it is being said so? It's right there in “your” manifesto. https://turso.tech/libsql-manifesto https://turso.tech/libsql-manifesto > We take our code of conduct seriously, and unlike SQLite, we do not substitute it with an unclear alternative. We strive to foster a community that values diversity, equity, and inclusion. We encourage others to speak up if they feel uncomfortable. The word toxic clearly stung, but putting “unlike SQLite … we encourage others to speak up if they feel uncomfortable” in a manifesto is fine. Well, I could argue I'm just speaking up. > libSQL was always part of Turso. So, I don't get your point. My point is explained quite clearly in your post detailing the decision. https://turso.tech/blog/were-bringing-libsql-into-the-turso-family-8cc1a653448e https://turso.tech/blog/were-bringing-libsql-into-the-turso-... > We have our own self interest in making those changes (…) But we also wanted to create a welcoming community, that is open to everybody, abides by a modern code of conduct and a clear OSS license, and reimagined what SQLite could be in broader ways than just our narrow needs. A little latter down that line you sum it up: doing the above (living up to your grandiose claims of a more welcoming SQLite) “meant twice the investment” (aka a lot of money) and didn't pan out as a marketing play (showed engagement). So instead of a community that “reimagined what SQLite could be in broader ways than just our narrow needs" we just get the features you had your "own self interest in making." Which is fine, but doesn't really match the manifesto. > Again this is incorrect. There are some docs… Emphasis on some. Do you have any documentation on how to build on the Virtual WAL (internal SQLite API that you simply opened up)? Or is that's still a Rust example of an implementation that simply wraps another and logs without detailing anything beyond function names? Do you have any documentation about the new WAL API that isn't "libsql_wal_insert_begin begins WAL insertion"? I'm sorry, but goal here isn't to make things useful to others. Which is fine really: you're doing more than you're required. But compared to SQLite developers, and their forum, it's not much. PS: you also behaved… untowardly when you integrated SQLite3MultipleCiphers, and did this with not previous a word to the author. https://turso.tech/blog/fully-open-source-encryption-for-sqlite-b3858225 https://turso.tech/blog/fully-open-source-encryption-for-sql... > One project in particular was very suitable for us, SQLite Multiple Ciphers. Since it is licensed under MIT, we have just moved the code into libSQL.
      - 2y ago
nindalf 2y ago
I think you've taken the most cynical view possible. SQLite is open source but not open contribution. So if they "won't do it for us" and "we need it", what else are they supposed to do? They're offering SQLite in the cloud, obviously they need to offer a streaming backup solution. Is there something wrong in building that? Alternatively, do you want them to reimplement features in SQLite already built out by the SQLite team? Really sounds like you're complaining about getting an open source, MIT licensed, open contribution bit of software for free that you're under no obligation to use. And here you are complaining about "community consensus".
- refulgentis 2y ago
  I may be able to shed some light. It seems they proposed a way to resolve the contradiction I raised (io_uring isn't supported on cloud providers) with the ground reality in the company's blog post. Namely, that: * it is intended for edge function deployment. * the paper they mention that is informing their decision to rewrite is based on perf improvements in the longtail by using io_uring. I framed it as "Are we sure...?", but truth is, I know providers don't have io_uring support. This is relatively straightforward to derive from edge functions are well-known to be multi-tenant. A cursory search shows unresolved AWS tickets re: this, and multiple announcements from Google about how it has been disabled in gCloud. Thus, it is likely they understood I was framing it politely, and that there was a clear contradiction here, hence their reply to me, raising a potential resolution for that contradiction, a resolution I hadn't considered. I don't see anything complaining, or bringing up, or implicitly denying, all the other stuff ("open source", "MIT licensed", "open contribution", "software for free" "under no obligation to use."). In fact, they explicitly indicated they completely agree with that view ("it's very cool that they're making parts of their tech FOSS.")
  - nindalf 2y ago
    io_uring isn't supported on cloud providers for now, but it may not be the case in future. Which is fine, because Limbo won't be ready for a few years at least.
  - threecheese 2y ago

tracker1 2y ago

Of course they are scratching their own itch, so to speak. Thats what companies do. I think the fact that they are doing so much in the open is the indication of good stewardship itself. I'm not sure what else they would do or release that they didn't need internally. For that matter, I'm not really aware of many significant contributions to FLOSS at all that aren't initially intended for company use, that's kinda how it works. Where I'm surprised here is how much secret sauce Turso is sharing at all.

ncruces 2y ago
I have no problem with them scratching their itch. That's par for the course. I'm salty about them describing the SQLite licensing, development model, and code of ethics as almost toxic, setting up a separate entity with a website and a manifesto promising to do better, and then folding “libSQL into the Turso family” within the year. They forked, played politics, added a few features (with some ill-considered incompatibilities), and properly documented zero of them. And I'm salty because I'm actually interested in some of those features, and they're impossible to use without proper documentation. I've had much better luck interacting with SQLite developers in the SQLite forum.
- avinassh 2y ago
  disclosure: I work at Turso > code of ethics as almost toxic This is simply not true. Can you tell me where it is being said so? > then folding “libSQL into the Turso family” within the year. libSQL was always part of Turso. So, I don't get your point. > They forked, played politics, added a few features (with some ill-considered incompatibilities), and properly documented zero of them. Again this is incorrect. There are some docs here: https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/tree/main/docs https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/tree/main/docs I am really not sure why are you so angry about libSQL.
  - ncruces 2y ago
    > This is simply not true. Can you tell me where it is being said so? It's right there in “your” manifesto. https://turso.tech/libsql-manifesto https://turso.tech/libsql-manifesto > We take our code of conduct seriously, and unlike SQLite, we do not substitute it with an unclear alternative. We strive to foster a community that values diversity, equity, and inclusion. We encourage others to speak up if they feel uncomfortable. The word toxic clearly stung, but putting “unlike SQLite … we encourage others to speak up if they feel uncomfortable” in a manifesto is fine. Well, I could argue I'm just speaking up. > libSQL was always part of Turso. So, I don't get your point. My point is explained quite clearly in your post detailing the decision. https://turso.tech/blog/were-bringing-libsql-into-the-turso-family-8cc1a653448e https://turso.tech/blog/were-bringing-libsql-into-the-turso-... > We have our own self interest in making those changes (…) But we also wanted to create a welcoming community, that is open to everybody, abides by a modern code of conduct and a clear OSS license, and reimagined what SQLite could be in broader ways than just our narrow needs. A little latter down that line you sum it up: doing the above (living up to your grandiose claims of a more welcoming SQLite) “meant twice the investment” (aka a lot of money) and didn't pan out as a marketing play (showed engagement). So instead of a community that “reimagined what SQLite could be in broader ways than just our narrow needs" we just get the features you had your "own self interest in making." Which is fine, but doesn't really match the manifesto. > Again this is incorrect. There are some docs… Emphasis on some. Do you have any documentation on how to build on the Virtual WAL (internal SQLite API that you simply opened up)? Or is that's still a Rust example of an implementation that simply wraps another and logs without detailing anything beyond function names? Do you have any documentation about the new WAL API that isn't "libsql_wal_insert_begin begins WAL insertion"? I'm sorry, but goal here isn't to make things useful to others. Which is fine really: you're doing more than you're required. But compared to SQLite developers, and their forum, it's not much. PS: you also behaved… untowardly when you integrated SQLite3MultipleCiphers, and did this with not previous a word to the author. https://turso.tech/blog/fully-open-source-encryption-for-sqlite-b3858225 https://turso.tech/blog/fully-open-source-encryption-for-sql... > One project in particular was very suitable for us, SQLite Multiple Ciphers. Since it is licensed under MIT, we have just moved the code into libSQL.
    - 2y ago

nindalf 2y ago

I think you've taken the most cynical view possible. SQLite is open source but not open contribution. So if they "won't do it for us" and "we need it", what else are they supposed to do? They're offering SQLite in the cloud, obviously they need to offer a streaming backup solution. Is there something wrong in building that? Alternatively, do you want them to reimplement features in SQLite already built out by the SQLite team? Really sounds like you're complaining about getting an open source, MIT licensed, open contribution bit of software for free that you're under no obligation to use. And here you are complaining about "community consensus".

refulgentis 2y ago
I may be able to shed some light. It seems they proposed a way to resolve the contradiction I raised (io_uring isn't supported on cloud providers) with the ground reality in the company's blog post. Namely, that: * it is intended for edge function deployment. * the paper they mention that is informing their decision to rewrite is based on perf improvements in the longtail by using io_uring. I framed it as "Are we sure...?", but truth is, I know providers don't have io_uring support. This is relatively straightforward to derive from edge functions are well-known to be multi-tenant. A cursory search shows unresolved AWS tickets re: this, and multiple announcements from Google about how it has been disabled in gCloud. Thus, it is likely they understood I was framing it politely, and that there was a clear contradiction here, hence their reply to me, raising a potential resolution for that contradiction, a resolution I hadn't considered. I don't see anything complaining, or bringing up, or implicitly denying, all the other stuff ("open source", "MIT licensed", "open contribution", "software for free" "under no obligation to use."). In fact, they explicitly indicated they completely agree with that view ("it's very cool that they're making parts of their tech FOSS.")
- nindalf 2y ago
  io_uring isn't supported on cloud providers for now, but it may not be the case in future. Which is fine, because Limbo won't be ready for a few years at least.
- threecheese 2y ago