[HN Gopher] DeWitt Clause, or can you benchmark %database% and g... ___________________________________________________________________ DeWitt Clause, or can you benchmark %database% and get away with it Author : arjunnarayan Score : 54 points Date : 2022-06-02 18:56 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (cube.dev) (TXT) w3m dump (cube.dev) | kstrauser wrote: | Honestly, the presence of that clause screams to me "this app | sucks and we'll sue you if you tell anyone how badly". That may | not be the case whatsoever, but my first assumption is that | they're trying to hide terrible performance. | [deleted] | dwohnitmok wrote: | One of my personal bugbears is the DeWitt Clause for Datomic, | especially because knowing the performance profile of Datomic is | very important for understanding whether your app will be a good | fit for it given some of its peculiarities. | [deleted] | Nextgrid wrote: | If you want to benchmark for internal reasons you don't publish | the results and nobody knows. If you want to make a service to | the community, run your benchmarks, download Tor and publish the | results anonymously. I don't see what the big deal is? | | Is this only limited to marketing claims where you post it on | your company's website? | igorlukanin wrote: | How likely is it that one takes an anonymous benchmark | published by a noname researcher seriously? | throwamon wrote: | Aren't benchmarks supposed to be more or less reproducible? | So just publish the results _and_ the data? | MathMonkeyMan wrote: | 100% | | Have you met programmers? | athrowaway3z wrote: | Extremely. | | Why would you assume people generally do | background/credential checks on researchers? | | Sure its nice to have it on phoronix or something, but its by | no means a deal-breaker if it isn't. | [deleted] | noasaservice wrote: | Its mainly related to MSSQL and Horracle. Horracle will just | use their legal team (which is bigger than their engineers and | developers) to bludgeon you over benchmarks. | giancarlostoro wrote: | "This just in Oracle legal team takes down entire Tor | Network" | | Jokes aside, I'm surprised they're so touchy about these | things. They can make plenty of money without it, they can | also save plenty of money with less lawyers. | chmod775 wrote: | It would be quite refreshing if we could have a story in which | Oracle are the good guys for once. | | I'm sure they are at least purchasing some modern-day | 'indulgences' by - for instance - donating food to starving north | korean elites? | jeroenhd wrote: | They try to be the good guy. Their free tier is quite extensive | (24GB of RAM, 4 ARM vCPUs and +-2 AMD cores, a several hundred | GB of storage), good enough to run quite a decent personal | cluster on, probably to lure in businesses for their AWS-style | cloud services which are as ridiculously expensive as their | competition. | | However, just like AWS, Azure, and GCloud, their admin UI is | complicated, slow, frustrating and full of invented acronyms | and quirks. | Beltalowda wrote: | I've read various stories over the years about Oracle | extremely aggressively pushing high bills because they think | you're using the "free" version of MySQL or VirtualBox in a | way that you're supposed to pay for it. I'd be very wary | running anything "free" from Oracle (as in: I wouldn't). | [deleted] | throwamon wrote: | I wasn't sure if you were joking, so I googled "oracle north | korea". This is the first result: | | https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2020/10/07/North-Kor... | Beltalowda wrote: | It's a strange feeling to find myself agreeing with the North | Korean government. | josephcsible wrote: | If Oracle ever wants to be the good guys just once, I have an | idea for them that's right in their wheelhouse. Step 1: buy | grsecurity's kernel hardening patches. Step 2: put said patches | in the publicly released UEK source. Step 3: wait for | grsecurity to refuse to give them future patches. Step 4: sue | grsecurity for imposing further restrictions on the exercise of | rights granted by the GPL. | andrenotgiant wrote: | Has either the Dewitt clause or the Dewitt Embrace ever resulted | in some kind of legal action? | | It seems like more of a threat stance to various partners and | ecosystem players than anything else. | bluestreak wrote: | It does result in cease and desist threats quite often. We have | been on the receiving end of one. | igorlukanin wrote: | Oh! Would love to learn more :--) | | As I'm the author of the blog post in question, I can think | of including your account there, if you'd like to. | igorlukanin wrote: | I think someone from Oracle would be more informed on that | matter. JK. On a more serious note, who would dare to displease | a multibillion corp with hundreds of lawyers (without being | backed by a similar co & lawyers)? | _jal wrote: | These things become substantially easier when approached | correctly. | | In this case, never run Oracle software. Not only will it | vastly improve your mood during budget season; your | developers will be less likely to stab you in your sleep and | you will never worry about their primary line of business: | lawsuits. | | _And_ you don 't care how they benchmark. | rckoepke wrote: | Could you pirate the database, then hide behind the fifth | amendment to not reveal that you're a pirate while | simultaneously asserting that you never agreed to any EULA? | I'm not sure what the legal rights are here. | | I'm certain someone in say, China or Russia, could pirate the | database and run benchmarks on it with no repercussions. | Surprising that this isn't a business model for an overseas | technology analyst firm. | xen0 wrote: | > Surprising that this isn't a business model for an | overseas technology analyst firm. | | How much are you willing to pay for a legally dubious | benchmark? | GorillaWarfare wrote: | Could this article comparing DeWitt Clauses be considered | benchmarking? | [deleted] | igorlukanin wrote: | Or benchmarketing? | jenny91 wrote: | All the BSL/SSPL ones shouldn't be in an "open source" section. | Just change the heading to "source available" or put them with | the "vendors". | igorlukanin wrote: | Author of the blog post in question here. Let me clarify: they | shouldn't be there because they're not OSI-approved, right? | Just wanna get your point here. | | (While I understand that BSL/SSPL lack certain liberties, I | deemed it okay to mark them as "open source" for the purposes | of this post.) | HideousKojima wrote: | Not just lack of OSI approval, they're attempting to redefine | the long accepted meaning of open source to include their new | licenses. They want the goodwill of being "open source" | without the obligations. The only sorts of licenses that have | consistently been considered open source are either copyleft | licenses like the GPL and do whatever the hell you want | licenses like MIT and Apache. Do whatever you want... unless | you're a big corporation... or unless you're part of a group | the authors deem evil/immoral/unethical... etc. is a massive | departure from the spirit of the term open source. | igorlukanin wrote: | Makes sense! Will edit when I'm next to my laptop, I | promise. | l33t2328 wrote: | > unless you're part of a group the authors deem | evil/immoral/unethical. | | What parts of the license mention that? | barkingcat wrote: | It is most likely in the "Additional Use Grant" which is | tricky - because this additional use grant is distinct to | each product licensed under the BSL. This additional use | grant is also not that easy to find, since some licenses | display it prominently, and others hide it under some | additional legal fineprint[1,2]. | | From mariadb site: https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq- | adopting/#limits | | "Q: What are the usage limitations under BSL? | | A: The usage is limited to non-production use, or | production use within the limits of the "Additional Use | Grant" defined by the vendor using BSL and specific to | each BSL product." | | [1] obvious Additional Use Grant for Couchbase, included | clearly in https://blog.couchbase.com/couchbase-adopts- | bsl-license/ | | [2] it is extremely difficult to find the Additional Use | Grant for Mariadb products themselves. For MaxScale, | which is their proxy product, it is buried in a file | within the source code (which on the surface level might | be a good place for it, but it's not very easy to find | and I had to go through lots of legal print to get to it) | : https://github.com/mariadb- | corporation/MaxScale/blob/2.5/LIC... or | https://github.com/mariadb- | corporation/MaxScale/blob/6.3/LIC... depending on which | version you are trying to use, etc. | [deleted] | tetha wrote: | Interesting. As a SaaS vendor, we do not allow performance | testing of the production system. Because, you know, just | casually saturating production resources can become very iffy for | strange and unexpected reasons. And you will always be able to | saturate a system, or a subsystem of the subsystem of the system. | | However, we have provided bigger customers, or customer willing | to pay for it, with performance testing environments. We have, | however, usually survived into the curiosity phase - "just how | much to I have to throw at this thing to break it?". | Beltalowda wrote: | Looking at the language, almost all of them allow you to _run_ | benchmarks since it 's phrased as "you may not publish | benchmark results"; it doesn't forbid to actually _run_ them. | Never mind that MS-SQL, Oracle, etc. are not SaaS vendors of | course. | | To be honest, if a cloud vendor has technical problems with | someone running a few benchmarks then that would make me very | wary of said cloud vendor. What's the difference between a | "benchmark" and "using all resources I paid for" anyway? | danielheath wrote: | For a smaller/younger SAAS: If a customer environment is | suddenly running at 100% of some resource when it wasn't | before, that's an important thing to alert on / investigate. | | For established players it's lost in the noise, but if it | were me I'd appreciate a heads up for big changes. | Beltalowda wrote: | Sure, a heads-up is certainly nice, but I don't think that | running a (reasonable) set of benchmarks is all that out of | the ordinary, or any different from just taxing the service | at 100% with some periodic batch job or the like. _Paying_ | for it is even stranger IMO. | | And for what it's worth, I did actually work for a few | small SaaS businesses, but a few _reasonable_ benchmarks | wouldn 't have been a problem. | | Of course, if your benchmarks are going to take 50 hours | it's a different story. | | Also: I suspect a lot of these database SaaS services are a | lot smaller than you'd might think. I know at least one of | them is anyway because I worked there. | josephcsible wrote: | There's a really big difference between "don't performance test | on our hardware that you're sharing with other tenants" and | "don't performance test on our software no matter whose | hardware it's running on". ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-03 23:00 UTC)