Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by rmc on Thursday January 10, 2019 @08:15AM
(#18873561)
> You have to read all of that pretty carefully to understand that it's NOT MongoDB
I disagree. If I see "Blah-compatible" I know it's not blah.
Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by skywhopper on Thursday January 10, 2019 @10:38AM
(#18874572)
Yeah, this is pretty clear. I do assume it will act the same as MongoDB 3.6, since that's what they claim, but it's extremely clear it's _not_ MongoDB.
Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by jjeaff on Thursday January 10, 2019 @01:22PM
(#18876416)
Really? Because AWS Aurora is "MySQL compatible" but I assume they did not build it from the ground up. It's surely a MySQL fork.
But even if it's a fork, then I know it's not the same thing. It could be very similar, but I expect some differences.
Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by joesb on Thursday January 10, 2019 @10:55PM
(#18880893)
Do you also assume that every single Web framework in the world are forked from single code base because they are all HTTP-compatible, too?
Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by sokoloff on Thursday January 10, 2019 @07:00AM
(#18873248)
I think the plainest and most obvious reading is that this is not MongoDB but that the migration from MongoDB over to this not-MongoDB would be easy because of the compatibility with MongoDB.
Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by freehunter on Thursday January 10, 2019 @09:42AM
(#18874114)
Agreed. Like how Digital Ocean lists their storage as S3-compatible. Amazon's on the other end of it there, Amazon's product's APIs have been copied and a competitor uses Amazon's product name in the competitor's marketing.
Digital Ocean is not advertising that they're AWS S3, just that they're S3 compatible. Like a processor that's x86 compatible, even though it's not actually an Intel 386, 486, etc. Like when computers used to advertise they were IBM compatible even though they're not an IBM PC. Like when store brands of toothpaste say "comparable to Colgate FreshWhite" but they're obviously not Colgate. Like when a startup calls themselves "Uber for horse rental" even though they're obviously not Uber.
I don't really agree there. The service is called documentDB and this is how they describe it [1]:
> Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility)
> Fast, scalable, highly available MongoDB-compatible database
And the first 2 sentences:
> Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility) is a fast, scalable, highly available, and fully managed document database service that supports MongoDB workloads.
> Customers use MongoDB as a document database to store, retrieve ...
You have to read all of that pretty carefully to understand that it's NOT MongoDB (a term they mention 5 times in the first 4 sentences). And if you read it carefully it seems to say it's compatible with MongoDB, whereas the Techcrunch article states it's only compatible with the MongoDB API from 2 years ago.
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/documentdb/