They aren't even remotely similar, they're VERY different. Here's a few starting points:
1) Most of Datastax's work for the first 5, 6, 8 years of existence focused on driving users to cassandra from other DBs (see all of the "Cassandra Summits" that eventually created trademark friction) ; Scylla's marketing is squarely Scylla v Cassandra. Ultimately they're both companies out to make money, but one has a history of driving users to Cassandra, and the other is trying to siphon users away from Cassandra. 2) Datastax may not be actively contributing as much as they used to, but some ridiculous number of engineering hours got paid out of their budget - maybe 80% of total lines of code? Maybe higher (though it's decreasing day by day). By contrast, Scylla has exactly zero meaningful concrete code contributions to the project, uses a license that makes even sharing concepts prohibitive, only has a handful or so JIRAs opened (which is better than zero), but has effectively no goodwill in the eyes of many of the longer-term community members (in large part because of #1, and also because of the way they positioned their talk-turned-product announcement at the competitor-funded 2016 summit). 3) Datastax apparently respects the project enough that they'd NEVER come in and ask for a protocol spec change without providing a reference implementation. 4) To that end, native protocol changes aren't something anyone is anxious to shove in without good reason. Even with a reference implementation, and a REALLY GOOD REASON (namely data correctness / protection from corruption), https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13304 has been sitting patch available for OVER A YEAR. So again: we have a Cassandra native protocol, and we have a process for changing it, and that process is contributor agnostic. Anyone who wants a change can submit a patch, and it'll get reviewed, and maybe if it's a good idea, it'll get committed, but the chances of a review leading to a commit without an implementation is nearly zero. Would be happy to see this thread die now. There's nothing new coming out of it. - Jeff On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Eric Stevens <migh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let met just say that as an observer to this conversation -- and someone > who believes that compatibility, extensibility, and frankly competition > bring out the best in products -- I'm fairly surprised and disappointed > with the apparent hostility many community members have shown toward a > sincere attempt by another open source product to find common ground here. > > Yes, Scylla has a competing OSS project (albeit under a different > license). They also have a business built around it. It's hard for me to > see that as dramatically different than the DataStax relationship to this > community. Though I would love to be shown why. >
