EOL for couchdb and desktopcouch

[Shane Fagan]

> That would be a very good reason to keep it in beta. It is usually a good
> idea to test things before you release them to the public. By announcing
> Ubuntu One as stable, reliable and available, they've fooled people into
> spending time and money on something that isn't real.

It was working to the point where it couldnt really be called beta
software. It always had the odd sticky issue but they spent hard
earned time and money making it get to the point where it was pretty
stable. The issue is scalability and that is a flaw that can only be
discovered when you hit the ceiling and you have to fight to either
keep the thing going and maintaining the service or replace it.

> Would I tear down an infrastructure that I had convinced a lot of people to
> rely on before I had something to replace it with? Absolutely not. Not in my
> wildest dreams. They show a level of respect that would fit between the
> strings of the worlds smallest violin.

Think of it like a bridge if there was a bridge that was built for 200
cars to go across and you hit 200 pretty consistently and you forecast
that its only going to get worse you would upgrade and build a
stronger one by replacing it or strengthening it. Strengthening it
only takes it so far maybe up to 500 but what happens after that?
Couchdb was never tested on the level that its at currently and its
struggling what happens when you get to the 200 million Mark said he
wants? It wouldn't be feasible to keep it going. So by replacing it
now before it gets to the point where too many people are relying on
it they are saving a good lot of hassle in the future.

Oh and im not arguing about the deleting of databases I don't really
know what the story is on that or if its possible to migrate it over
or if it would be better just to start clean.

> Are you saying that DesktopCouch is fundamentally flawed, or are you saying
> that Ubuntu One is fundamentally flawed? Because those are different things.
> You talk about natural deprecation of old technologies. But you are
> describing something entirely different than the actual situation. In your
> scenario, you're replacing a technology to provide a feature with something
> else. That's not the case here. They're removing the feature altogether,
> deleting databases. Some time in the future, we might see a replacement,
> though the claim seems completely unreasonable to me -- irrational, even.
> They claim that they can't make CouchDB in Ubuntu scale, so they need to
> replace it with something that will handle all platforms and all databases,
> which obviously includes CouchDB. Seems to me that they're saying it was too
> difficult to learn how to ride a bicycle with training wheels, so now
> they're joining the Tour de France.

Im saying couchdb is fundamentally flawed by the fact that there are
problems with how scalable it is. That warrants changing it because at
the numbers that are needed to sustain much more people wouldn't work.
And im pretty sure you didn't read all of that email they are making
something similar to replace it here is the quote just for
clarification.


"Because we still believe there is a lot of value to our users in the
service we wanted to offer based on CouchDB, we're building something
new, based on what we've learned. It's very small, merely a layer of
abstraction and the definition of an API that will allow us and others
to build what is needed ontop of existing tools. We're calling it U1DB
for now, until it comes of age. If you're interested and techincally
inclined you can follow our progress on lp:u1db; unfortunately our
timing and resources are such that we can only promise the reference
python implementation will be ready in time for 12.04, and thus 12.04
will ship without Ubuntu One having a solid story around synchronizing
arbitrary structured data."

So you aren't getting left high and dry.

Shane