MS Releases Open Source Alternative To BigTable

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."

Comments

I lol'd

[Aranykai]

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

It's not an alternative to BigTable

[wilsoniya]

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.

Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

needs an expert opinion

[FudRucker]

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

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

Crap

[ledow]

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.

Re:Crap

[mc1138]

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.

Re:.Net?

[ultrabot]

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.

Re:so what's the license?

[larry bagina]

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

Re:Wow... just wow.

[sheepofblue]

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