3 ms·

As an author of Hyperdex it seems unethical for him to go bash competition.

notacoward 13y ago
Well, that's a tricky one. In some ways he has a duty to explain what makes his own project useful and different. That often involves making comparisons to others. All of us in the same or related fields (including me) also have a duty to educate users about tradeoffs and especially about those that can endanger their data, and that often involves using "less stellar" systems as examples. Unfortunately, there are many who take the comparisons or examples too far, either by making claims that aren't quite true or by "piling on" about things that are already well known. The punishment should be proportional to the crime, and I think there are some who would impose the death penalty for jaywalking. At least half of the sniping from the Riak camp about Cassandra's consistency falls into this category. While some criticism of Mongo is well deserved, at least as much is overkill and far more is just crowd-following by people who don't even understand the issues. The OP is one of these extremists ("data radical" is his own term). In fact, the reason he and I aren't such good friends is that we disagreed quite sharply about some of the FUD he was slinging to promote his own project. http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/index.php/2013/03/is-eventual-consistency-useful/ http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/index.php/2013/03/is-eventual-co... I don't think it's unethical for people to criticize related work. In fact, such criticism can be very useful. Many of my own contributions to GlusterFS have been inspired by these discussions, sometimes even about other projects. The key is to keep criticism factual and relevant to some point other that "that project sucks", to avoid piling on, and to offer occasional praise as well as condemnation. Also, you originally condemned him for criticizing without having contributed an alternative. Now you're condemning him for criticizing when he has. What are the ethics of setting up such a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation?

Well, that's a tricky one. In some ways he has a duty to explain what makes his own project useful and different. That often involves making comparisons to others. All of us in the same or related fields (including me) also have a duty to educate users about tradeoffs and especially about those that can endanger their data, and that often involves using "less stellar" systems as examples. Unfortunately, there are many who take the comparisons or examples too far, either by making claims that aren't quite true or by "piling on" about things that are already well known. The punishment should be proportional to the crime, and I think there are some who would impose the death penalty for jaywalking. At least half of the sniping from the Riak camp about Cassandra's consistency falls into this category. While some criticism of Mongo is well deserved, at least as much is overkill and far more is just crowd-following by people who don't even understand the issues. The OP is one of these extremists ("data radical" is his own term). In fact, the reason he and I aren't such good friends is that we disagreed quite sharply about some of the FUD he was slinging to promote his own project. http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/index.php/2013/03/is-eventual-consistency-useful/ http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/index.php/2013/03/is-eventual-co... I don't think it's unethical for people to criticize related work. In fact, such criticism can be very useful. Many of my own contributions to GlusterFS have been inspired by these discussions, sometimes even about other projects. The key is to keep criticism factual and relevant to some point other that "that project sucks", to avoid piling on, and to offer occasional praise as well as condemnation. Also, you originally condemned him for criticizing without having contributed an alternative. Now you're condemning him for criticizing when he has. What are the ethics of setting up such a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation?