5 ms·
If this acquisition was in any way related to Apple wanting to use this product in-house -- call me massively confused. It really would be a mental sickness if
by awinder 12y ago
If this acquisition was in any way related to Apple wanting to use this product in-house -- call me massively confused. It really would be a mental sickness if Apple were so insistent on using closed-source tech across the organization, even while that is a very obscure line of thinking amongst it's competitors in the cloud space. On the other hand, if Apple is acqui-hiring these guys -- then why kill the download links instantly? So yeah, either way, seems like a poorly handled situation
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- capkutay 12y agoJust because the tech companies we read about on hacker news rely on and contribute to open source, doesn't mean that its a 'mental sickness' to use proprietary products. There's good workloads for open source (Apple uses hadoop/hbase heavily internally), and then theres unique proprietary solutions.
- awinder 12y agoThe mental sickness wouldn't be using any proprietary software. The mental sickness would be acquiring a closed source database and keeping the tech closed source. Databases specifically seem to have a huge mindshare and usage share around open source. And when conventional stores haven't fulfilled a need, solutions like Cassandra, CouchBase, and Mongodb have been released as open source software. I don't really think Apple has some unique data persistence needs to require such an obscure path, if that is really what they were doing