Twitter | Search | |
Lonn Johnston 25 Jun 19
Replying to @mjasay
I like his candor on open source. MySQL and BerkeleyDB also never really took outside contributions. It’s a strategy to grab market share that works if you also have a superior product
Reply Retweet Like
Matt Asay 25 Jun 19
Replying to @p1lonn
Right. I think his candor was directed at Wall Street but will be picked up by developers, who will like it a bit less, I think. But it's absolutely true that basically no open source companies actually take outside contributions.
Reply Retweet Like
Zack Urlocker 25 Jun 19
Replying to @mjasay @p1lonn
MySQL did take contributions but the bar was high and it was not critical to the strategy, just a minor side benefit.
Reply Retweet Like
Lonn Johnston 25 Jun 19
Replying to @ZUrlocker @mjasay
On what authority to you make this claim? :-)
Reply Retweet Like
Zack Urlocker 25 Jun 19
Replying to @p1lonn @mjasay
The complication was that Monty didn’t really want contributions
Reply Retweet Like
Domas Mituzas 26 Jun 19
I tried to sell that patch internally at MySQL, but internally "Web Scale" databases meant Jim Starkey's Falcon (which was BS-ware) and not what actually web needed. This is the 12-year old post:
Reply Retweet Like
Jim Dowling
Funny thing is even if we had built a web-scale, sharded MySQL, the tech companies would never have paid for it. I think i remember Google had paid for 1 week of consulting, while running 10s of 1000s of instances.
Reply Retweet Like More
Zack Urlocker 26 Jun 19
To be clear, Google paid MySQL around $1m / year for licenses. The value they received was likely higher than that, but as everyone knows but few understand, there's no great incentive for big tech companies to pay for open source software.
Reply Retweet Like