Well, looking back, it appears this thread is from 2015, so apparently everyone is okay with it.
Promoting a value-add product that makes using Cassandra easier/more efficient/etc would be cool, but coming to the Cassandra mailing list to promote a "drop-in replacement" (use us, not Cassandra) isn't cool, IMHO. On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 5:04 PM Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> wrote: yes. On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:01 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: Does all of this Scylla talk really even belong on the Cassandra user mailing list in the first place? On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 4:07 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@apache.org> wrote: On 2017-03-11 22:33 (-0700), Dor Laor <d...@scylladb.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2017-03-10 09:57 (-0800), Rakesh Kumar wrote: > > > Cassanda vs Scylla is a valid comparison because they both are > > compatible. Scylla is a drop-in replacement for Cassandra. > > > > No, they aren't, and no, it isn't > > > > Jeff is angry with us for some reason. I don't know why, it's natural that > when a new opponent there are objections and the proof lies on us. I'm not angry. When I'm angry I send emails with paragraphs of expletives. It doesn't happen very often. This is an open source ASF project, it's not about fighting for market share against startups who find it necessary to inflate their level of compatibility to sell support contracts, it's about providing software that people can use (with a license that makes it easy to use). I don't work for a company that makes money selling Cassandra based solutions and you're not an opponent. > > Scylla IS a drop in replacement for C*. We support the same CQL (from > version 1.7 it's cql 3.3.1, protocol v4), the same SStable format (based on > 2.1.8). Scylla doesn't even run on all of the supported operating systems, let alone have feature parity or network level compatibility (which you'd probably need if you REALLY want to be drop-in stop-one-cassandra-node-swap-binaries-start-it-up compatible, which is what your site used to claim, but obviously isn't supported). You support a subset of one query language and can read and write one sstable format. You do it with great supporting tech and a great engineering team, but you're not compatible, and if I were your cofounder I'd ask you to focus on the tech strengths and not your drop-in compatibility, so engineers who care about facts don't grow to resent your public lies. I've used a lot of databases in my life, but I don't know that I've ever had someone call me angry because I pointed out that database A wasn't compatible with database B, but I guess I'll chalk it up to 2017 and the year of fake news / alternative facts. Hugs and kisses, - Jeff
