Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Releases Open Source Alternative To BigTable

Posted by kdawson on from the devil-puts-on-gloves dept.

gollito writes in with news that Microsoft has released an open source alternative to Google's BigTable file system, which is used on large distributed computer clusters. Matt Asay writes for CNet: "I also believe that Microsoft's fear-mongering around open source cost it years of productivity and quality gains that it could have been delivering to customers through open source. I hope that reign of ignorance is over."

18 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. I lol'd by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this really news, or just another opportunity for us to have everyones favorite slashdot debate?

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    1. Re:I lol'd by syntaxglitch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, in a mathematical sense, emacs is strictly superior to vi--you can implement vi in emacs, but not the other way around!

  2. It's not an alternative to BigTable by wilsoniya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google doesn't sell/license BigTable in any way. It's used internally. I fail to see how it's possible to release an alternative to something which can't be acquired in any form.

    --
    I can't remember the last time I forgot anything.
    1. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google doesn't sell/license BigTable in any way. It's used internally. I fail to see how it's possible to release an alternative to something which can't be acquired in any form.

      Not completely correct. You can use BigTable right now. There are Google AppEngine APIs that can access BigTable. You just can't use it without using Google's servers, that's all.

      If, at this point, you still can't see why it's completely obvious why Microsoft would write an alternative to BigTable and open source it, all I can say you haven't been paying attention.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using Google's AppEngine, you can use BigTable.. so while you can't install it on your own servers, you can still write software that uses it.

      Which means that your appliance that uses BigTable needs continuous access to the Internet.

    3. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by CarpetShark · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I fail to see how it's possible to release an alternative to something which can't be acquired in any form.

      Really? So if all proprietary compilers where not sold, but were instead kept in-house as development tools, then GCC would cease to be an open source/free software alternative to them?

    4. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by IrrepressibleMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure how this is funny?
      I concede I may be missing something, but very few of my 1500+ servers have access to the internet and those that do are carefully restricted by firewall.
      Am I being dense?

  3. needs an expert opinion by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...I hope that reign of ignorance is over."

    don't count on it, you know about embrace/extend/extinguish?

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  4. Crap by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Article says that they "use open source". Doesn't mean they give ANYTHING back at all, because they are not distributing it, thus the HEADLINE is so false it's unbelievable.

    For instance, say they took even a GPL'd piece of software, extended it to add marvellous and important new features and then KEPT IT IN HOUSE. They can still use it, still claim it's "open source" but they NEVER have to let anyone but themselves see that code.

    It's bad editing, bad reviewing, bad summarising and just outright lying. There is nothing "Open" about anything being done here apart from the software that MS chose to use.

    1. Re:Crap by mc1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Looking at Microsoft's history, I could see them releasing it, making it freely available, just to take a little bit away from Google. The animosity between Microsoft and Google isn't exactly a secret, and neither is Microsoft's do anything to win attitude. Case in point, look at how they've handled piracy overseas. Rather than crack down, they've been lenient to help keep their market share up. Better Window's for free than no Windows at all... I could see them going totally open source if they thought it would improve their hold on the market or at least hurt some competitors.

      --
      The musings of just another geek and his junk.
  5. Probably HBase by allenw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    None of the articles say it, but they are probably talking about HBase. If this is the case, this is seriously old news.

    HBase was started by the Powerset guys before being acquired by Microsoft. After the acquisition there was a lot of concern in the Hadoop community about whether the Powerset guys would be allowed to continue to contribute. They have, and as far as I can tell, the community is not particularly concerned about MS's involvement.

  6. Re:.Net? by ultrabot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Will be it attached to .Net? Probably, right?

    Java more likely (since it's built on Hadoop, which uses Java).

    Slighty embarrassing for microsoft, perhaps? But remember, this comes from a group that microsoft acquired, not something that has always been a part of microsoft.

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  7. Re:so what's the license? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's apache, which is more free than GPL.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  8. Re:did they use hot chicks to promote it? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

    when to use couch?

    when availability is more important than consistency

    I think I'd rather not subscribe to that newsletter.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  9. Re:Wow... just wow. by sheepofblue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or this is Microsoft trying to hurt Google because they fear them more than open source

  10. Re:so what's the license? by wrook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's apache, which is more free than GPL.

    While this is an informative post, modding it insightful is a bit trollish. If your definition of "free" means "less restricted", then it is certainly true. If your definition of "free" refers to the "free" as commonly used in "free software", then the statement is meaningless. Either it is free (gives me the 4 freedoms) or it isn't. There isn't "more" or "less".

    By saying it is "more free than the GPL" you are making a distinction which is completely unnecessary in this context. The Apache license is both free as in "has few restrictions" and free as in "free software". So you can merely say that the Apache license is a "free license" as opposed to Microsoft's "shared source" licenses.

    I, for one, am getting tired of these pointless political jabs.

  11. More Or Less by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's apache, which is more free than GPL.

    More free if you want companies to be able to use the software without giving anything back to you.

    Less free if you want changes to always be public for everyone forever.

    I'm all for BSD style licenses in some cases that allow a company to use code without contributing changes back to anyone. But do not redefine what "free" really means just because you have an irrational fear of prophetic guys with beards.

    Otherwise you are missing the whole point behind open source software, which is that the source in in fact open. Allowing some changes to exist behind locked gates is in fact less free no matter how you weasel it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. Re:really? by MarkKB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not to mention that it was only supposed to be a temporary solution. Work on the new, Microsoft-written TCP/IP started shortly after NT 3.1 RTM'd, and was released in Windows NT 3.5 and Windows 95. The command-line networking programs (like ftp) that were ported along with Spider's TCP stack were left in, mainly because they worked well enough that Microsoft saw no reason to replace them.