Slashdot Mirror
Apple Open Sources FoundationDB (macrumors.com)
Apple's FoundationDB company announced on Thursday that the FoundationDB core has been open sourced with the goal of building an open community with all major development done in the open. The database company was purchased by Apple back in 2015. As described in the announcement, FoundationDB is a distributed datastore that's been designed from the ground up to be deployed on clusters of commodity hardware. Mac Rumors reports: By open sourcing the project to drive development, FoundationDB is aiming to become "the foundation of the next generation of distributed databases: "The vision of FoundationDB is to start with a simple, powerful core and extend it through the addition of "layers". The key-value store, which is open sourced today, is the core, focused on incorporating only features that aren't possible to write in layers. Layers extend that core by adding features to model specific types of data and handle their access patterns. The fundamental architecture of FoundationDB, including its use of layers, promotes the best practices of scalable and manageable systems. By running multiple layers on a single cluster (for example a document store layer and a graph layer), you can match your specific applications to the best data model. Running less infrastructure reduces your organization's operational and technical overhead." The source for FoundationDB is available on Github, and those who wish to join the project are encouraged to visit the FoundationDB community forums, submit bugs, and make contributions to the core software and documentation.
Is it webscale?
Shame it's not the DB format used on the later iPod Nano music players, because that would have been useful.
Why UNIX?
Do you really want to be making Apple products better FOR FREE?
The point of Open Source is that EVERYONE gets a better product "for free" because by contributing changes Apple benefits - but so do you, or anyone else that chooses to use the code. Why would you choose to contribute if you were not also benefitting to begin with?
In fact in a very real sense Apple is not getting anything "for free". There is very real time that Apple is paying for, that has gone into building this system that Apple has opened, and also Apple is paying for time to monitor and curate and test contributions. All of that takes time and money and is not "free", far too many people think of actual code as the beginning and end but it is just a tiny part of a more complex puzzle.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A quick look through the source code shows the vast majority is C++ with some Python thrown in. The only CSharp I can see is in "flow/ActorCompiler". There is not much there and it could probably be converted into Python with a little effort.
Now that this is an open source project it is likely that the CSharp will be rewritten in another language. The thought of having to install Mono makes me cringe - and I doubt I am the only one. Someone will consider it worth their time to make the change. It does not look like the CSharp components are used to facilitate binding to .NET so a change is likely viable.
A good test for openness is whether something is in the NetBSD pkgsrc collection. This doesn't appear to be.
Because it was just open-sourced this week???
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Burt Bacharach was wrong. What the world needs now is another distributed key value store.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"Do you really want to be making Apple products better FOR FREE?"
Sure. That's the same with other open source projects like WordPress. I make it better, I benefit from it, if the community likes it they incorporate it in the main line and everyone benefits. Works.
Would the API for this be called FoundationDBFoundation?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Well that doesn't mean they're worthless to many. Regardless, a less misleading headline would be: "Apple is the 7000th vendor to open source their key value store after discovering the space is too crowded".
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"I'll pass. Seriously wtf does a database need mono for?"
Lots of teens have it, it's a must.
Do you really want to be making Apple products better FOR FREE?
Because if you provide code under a contributor license agreement to them, that is what you will be doing.
In theory, sure. In practice, not under this license. If they were to use GPL, then I'd be happy to make any contributions that were useful to me. Since they aren't, I'd rather use something else. Foundationdb does seem to be about the fastest thing around that does what it does, though. (I haven't used it, but I browsed around for a while before writing this comment.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Like Webkit you mean? Actually 80% of MacOS has always been open source
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Like Webkit you mean? Actually 80% of MacOS has always been open source
So what? Wake me up when it's Free Software.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They may have niches where they shine, but PHB's and resume buzzword padders may use them where not appropriate. For example, some fool stuck our shop with a "microservices" architecture when we don't need it, wasting time and money. Goddam idiots.
Table-ized A.I.
I thought the point of Open Source is that EVERYONE gets a better product "for free" EQUALLY
That is true to the extent you use the code. If someone does not use the code, they obviously get less benefit. However someone trying to do something with open source code can easily benefit FAR more than the original developer and maintainer - sure Apple benefited from WebKit for example, but it seems to me lots of companies got WAY more value out of it than Apple did, because they would have spent a far greater percentage of R&D budget on something that worked as well as WebKit than Apple had to.
If you want to contribute under a license for the benefit of some corporation over yourself, you are welcome to do that. I'll pass on that.
But again, it's not contributing to a company OVER yourself. If you are contributing, that means you are also using the project yourself, which means you are gaining some benefit.
You could of course withhold changes to prevent others from getting your "invaluable" changes. But if you've ever modified an open source library you know that is fools gold; for what you have is a patch you have to maintain and merge with every update to the project that comes down over time. Truly that way lies madness and you gain far more contributing changes back to the main project where someone else maintains them... then they are working for YOU for free. Why do you not look at it that way?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mac OSX which roots to DARWIN at its core is open source. FoundationDB open source I read as a strategic action preceding the launch of another or new Apple platform.
It's spelled Murphy's, you moron.
No, it isn't.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.