×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canonical Drops CouchDB From Ubuntu One

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the saw-off-the-legs dept.

Databases 93

rsk writes "Since the Ubuntu One desktop synchronization service was launched by Canonical it has always been powered by CouchDB, a popular document-oriented NoSQL data store with a powerful master-master replication architecture that runs in many different environments (servers, mobile devices, etc.). John Lenton, senior engineering manager at Canonical, announced that Canonical would be moving away from CouchDB due to a few unresolvable issues Canonical ran into in production with CouchDB and the scale/requirements of the Ubuntu One service. Instead, says Lenton, Canonical will be moving to a custom data storage abstraction layer (U1DB) that is platform agnostic as well as datastore agnostic; utilizing the native datastore on the host device (e.g. SQLite, MySQL, API layers, 'everything'). U1DB will be complete at some point after the 12.04 release."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

93 comments

Our sync service is not “powered by CouchDB& (5, Informative)

Chipaca (18396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138360)

Our structured data sync service is CouchDB, except for tomboy notes. Syncing files is a completely separate stack.

Re:Our sync service is not “powered by Couch (1)

rsk (119464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38139810)

I'm sorry about that misstatement; thank you for the correction.

unresolvable issues (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38138390)

dropped Ubuntu due to unresolvable issues with the way that they handle desktop environment migration. Liking Mint much better. Hope others are able to manage or migrate. Ubuntu is otherwise a very nice OS.

Re: unresolvable issues (0, Redundant)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138484)

Seconded. My desktop is now frozen at Ubuntu 11.04, and i am looking for some other distro. Fedora, old love, maybe i will return to you...

Re: unresolvable issues (1, Offtopic)

Eggbloke (1698408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138666)

An interesting distro I have come across recently is Mint Debian. They do the same thing normal Mint does but skip Ubuntu. I think they use Debian unstable as a base. I think it is fairly new now but it looks promising.

Re: unresolvable issues (1)

theolein (316044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140288)

I use it as well. Very nice for a Debian distro and none of the hassles.

Re: unresolvable issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140464)

LMDE somehow lacks Wine in the repositories. Yeah, you can manually install it, but a glaring omission

Re: unresolvable issues (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138774)

I upgraded recently to v10.10 and am very pleased. It's got a bit less old libraries, and PPAs let me keep current on the apps I use.

Re: unresolvable issues (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 2 years ago | (#38139460)

I upgraded recently to v10.10 and am very pleased. It's got a bit less old libraries, and PPAs let me keep current on the apps I use.

That's fine, and 11.04 will be fine as well, if you like Unity, or if you turn it off immediately after upgrading. But 11.10 is a different story, and that is mostly because of Unity or Gnome 3. It's a bad thing that they force this onto you, and I'm stuck with 11.04 as well for the moment. I hate it because we just pushed many people in our organisation to Ubuntu, and now they may have to deal with this new interface which doesn't work. For the moment I'm keeping them off this upgrade.

Re: unresolvable issues (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38139622)

and 11.04 will be fine as well

Except for those of us who use the nvidia binary driver (for VDPAU) and are bitten by a Compiz bug that makes window movement slow as molasses.

Re: unresolvable issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38139912)

This is not fixed in 11.10. In fact, it is much worse.

Re: unresolvable issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38146308)

For the moment I'm keeping them off this upgrade.

That's our situation as well. I don't what Ubuntu was thinking. Unity might be good for small form factors but it just doesn't work for larger screens, IMHO.

Re: unresolvable issues (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 2 years ago | (#38153758)

Seconded. My desktop is now frozen at Ubuntu 11.04, and i am looking for some other distro. Fedora, old love, maybe i will return to you...

Thirded. My desktops and laptops are now frozen at Ubuntu 10.04LTS.. There is FAR too much drama going on with Ubuntu since 10.04.. All the changes to new and crappy stuff. I like the new Mint/Debian, but it has one glaring issue..I use the OpenShot video editor on a daily basis, and getting it from a repo into Mint/Debian was not happening, so I'm sticking with U10.04 for now...

Re: unresolvable issues (1)

Teeroy32 (2512400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38155476)

Same here, but I've installed xfce and am now tweaking it so its looks like gnome 2. Also i set my / drive as a separate partition too my home folder so when precise pangolin comes out I'm going to install Xubuntu instead of Ubuntu and try and import my settings, I did try oneric but it seemed very buggy and slow, mind you I did install gnome shell and used fall-back mode which isn't as good as gnome 2 or even xfce for that matter, can't stand Unity, to much like OSX, window controls should be on the window not the task bar, well when your a heavy mouse user like me anyway. Another thing I like about xfce is my two screens have different wallpapers which I really like.

Re: unresolvable issues (0)

tomstockmail (2056752) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138632)

I've been wanting to switch to Mint Debian Edition for some time but the KDE support keeps being pushed lower and lower on the priority list of the project sadly. Maybe it's about time I start helping a community project.

Re: unresolvable issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140258)

May I recommend Aptosid then? Fully compatible with Debian Sid, you can even dist-upgrade to it from a proper Debian install - I went from testing - and KDE is working pretty well.

I find Mint very mint (1)

theolein (316044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140272)

I too dropped Ubuntu for Mint. Much happier now.

Re:I find Mint very mint (3, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140636)

And according to distrowatch, Mint is now the #1 distro, ahead of Ubuntu. I applied the "my wife's box" test (fnar fnar), and yup, Mint 11 LXDE satisfied her completely, where Ubuntu 11.04 had left her dry and aching. I guess Shuttleworth's Reality Distortion Field needs a bit of work.

Re:I find Mint very mint (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141818)

LXDE satisfied her completely

I feel genuinely sorry for your sake. It must suck to be rendered obsolete so easily. ;)

Re:I find Mint very mint (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38147416)

Mint 11 LXDE satisfied her completely, where Ubuntu 11.04 had left her dry and aching

Her vibrators run Linux?

Re:I find Mint very mint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38161684)

Distrowatch doesn't measure what distro is #1 on anything except the people who use distrowatch.

Re:I find Mint very mint (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 2 years ago | (#38143250)

I too dropped Ubuntu for Mint. Much happier now.

Thirded. It's probably not as mature as Ubuntu as I occasionally encounter bugs, but it's a lot better overall. Mint is the distro I give to friends who inquire about Linux. I've run FreeBSD and heaps of different distros on my desktop since way back when, I ran Ubuntu as long as possible, but now I've come to the point where I just want something with a consistent interface that works.

Re: unresolvable issues (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140744)

I'm with you ... Ubuntu is gone on nearly all of my computers now. Unity makes it pretty damn unusable. I switched to ordinary Debian but I hear Mint is getting quite a following now and is on its way to becoming "the new Ubuntu."

Spaceman really jumped the shark with this one.

Re: unresolvable issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38142166)

Ubuntu ain't OS but distribution of Linux operating system.
The Linux kernel is not microkernel but monolithic what means it is the whole operating system.

How long it takes to Ubuntu tribe to learn it?

Re: unresolvable issues with encryption on Mint (1)

Elrond, Duke of URL (2657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38147138)

I'll second that. I needed to reinstall Linux on my notebook and after having fits with the most recent Ubuntu release, I was very much ready to give Linux Mint a try.

But, on all of my single user machines (desktop, notebook, netbook), I always use root-on-LVM-on-crypt (using LUKS for encryption) for my hard drive setup. This way, everything except for the small boot partition is encrypted. It works great and I've personally found the performance hit to be negligible. I even have my file server set up this way and it does much more I/O than any of my other machines without any noticeable problems.

Anyway, both Debian and Ubuntu support this type of configuration directly in their installers. Ubuntu also supports (or did, at least) a per-user home directory encryption. I gave it a try once, but I didn't care for it and it even broke simple things, like using 'du' to see how much space was being used by a file or directory.

Unfortunately, Linux Mint does not support this configuration. I found this to be rather odd, since Mint is based on Ubuntu, which supports it, and Mint Debian edition is based on Debian which also supports it. I found a forum thread where somebody had managed to get it to work, but it seemed like an awful lot of hoops to jump through. In the end, I just went with Debian/testing and called it a day. Hopefully the Mint people will add this ability soon because I'd really like to give it a try.

Specific Issues (3, Interesting)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138442)

It would be interesting to hear more from Canonical about what specific issues they ran into. They say that they worked with "the company behind CouchDB." While Couchbase is one company "behind" the project, CouchDB itself is an Apache project. Did they reach out to the Apache project itself? Also, why build something completely new rather than provide patches to existing software? I'm sure they had good reasons, but I'd like to hear some more details about what did and didn't work for them.

Re:Specific Issues (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38138558)

The only "new thing" is a database abstraction layer that they should have already been using to begin with. Who in this day still writes their software heavily coupled to a single database rather than using a thin abstraction layer?

Re:Specific Issues (5, Informative)

Chipaca (18396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138626)

The only "new thing" is a database abstraction layer that they should have already been using to begin with. Who in this day still writes their software heavily coupled to a single database rather than using a thin abstraction layer?

we did, it's desktopcouch. Turned out to be too thin.

Re:Specific Issues (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38139482)

meh, they should use an abstraction layer on top of other abstration layers to cover all the bases.

Re:Specific Issues (2)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140492)

meh, they should use an abstraction layer on top of other abstraction layers to cover all the bases.

Yeah, and XML-encapsulated SQL, definitely needs at least one layer of XML. Definitely.

Re:Specific Issues (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140952)

Just to be safe, you should store your data as XML elements in the fields of the same name:
select id from table
<id>1</id>
<id>2</id>

Re:Specific Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38138606)

What do you suppose the ASF would do? The Apache Software Foundation hosts projects that meet certain standards, but they do not manage any of the projects themselves.

Re:Specific Issues (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138764)

What do you suppose the ASF would do? The Apache Software Foundation hosts projects that meet certain standards, but they do not manage any of the projects themselves.

When I said, "reach out to the Apache project itself" I meant sending an email to the CouchDB project's mailing list or otherwise contacting contributors to the Apache CouchDB project. I didn't mean contacting the ASF.

Re:Specific Issues (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138882)

Why? You're mostly just going to be contacting the same people who work for Couchbase since it's the company formed by a group of the main developers.

Re:Specific Issues (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38138874)

It's probably not scaling well. I've seen workloads that totally killed couchdb to a point MySQL blew it out

For instance, storing rss feeds. Couchdb seems ok for that until you try to use it.

Re:Specific Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38149976)

They're preparing for 200 million users. Learning from the titanic episode, they should be able to accommodate all the users. If each user has ten databases (I have 25) then we're talking about synchronizing 2 billion databases. It's not a normal use case.

They didn't have any problems with CouchDB itself, as they explained. That scales well. Perhaps it's not suited for a cluster of hundreds of millions of server instances, but I don't know any DBMS that's suitable for that. A company I used to work for tested CouchDB too make sure it could handle all the data. The tests were stopped at 3 billion documents without any issues. It was deemed more than sufficient for any future needs. But that's something entirely different.

Re:Specific Issues (2, Interesting)

tildeslash (2032236) | more than 2 years ago | (#38138934)

A lot of newer tech companies prefer to develop their own systems these days; there is a new culture of "dogfooding" i.e. building your tools from scratch and using your own product. There are good technical reasons for doing so when you are innovating, as existing systems will never quite meet your requirements. This is especially true of the cloud and "big data" (non-relational DBs), which are both still young and rapidly evolving.

As for specifically what went wrong: I suspect that comes under trade secrets. Building a cloud is hard.

Re:Specific Issues (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38139022)

Except that they aren't making their own tools. They are just rewriting their database abstraction layer so they can use a variety of didn't different backend databases rather than just couchdb.

Re:Specific Issues (2)

bolthole (122186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38139634)

You are confusing "Dogfooding" with "NIH syndrome"

Re:Specific Issues (0)

tildeslash (2032236) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140712)

I think you have it backwards. Creating your own tools for technical reasons is dogfooding.

Re:Specific Issues (4, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141166)

No, dogfooding is using the stuff you make yourself. It has nothing to do with WHY you made it, HOW you made it or anything else.

Its simply different than making a product to sell, and then using something entirely different internally. For instance, Microsoft selling Visual Source Safe ... but not actually using it internally for Windows because it sucked so hard. That is not dogfooding.

The term is 'eating your own dogfood', because you're eating what you made.

Linus dogfood's Linux for instance.

WTF is it with you kids fucking up phrases you don't understand. If you don't know what it means or where it came from will you fucking please stop god damn pretending you do. And stop calling all unpatched exploits zero day. They stopped being zero day within 24 hours of creation. After that they are just fucking exploits.

Re:Specific Issues (1)

Lakitu (136170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38142866)

Creating your own tools for technical reasons contains the implication that you are using them because of the aforementioned technical reasons. ie, it must be "dogfooding". The rest of his post even explains why a lot of these tech shops must create their own tools -- because they are pushing innovation, so existing systems will never meet their requirements.

I think you should learn how to read before complaining about people's usages of phrases!

Re:Specific Issues (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 2 years ago | (#38143688)

No, dogfooding is using the stuff you make yourself. It has nothing to do with WHY you made it, HOW you made it or anything else.

Its simply different than making a product to sell, and then using something entirely different internally. For instance, Microsoft selling Visual Source Safe ... but not actually using it internally for Windows because it sucked so hard. That is not dogfooding.

Additionally it implies that your own product is inferior. As I understand, it is using your own inferior product, as in "dog food is not fit for human consumption, but I eat it since I made it". I don't know about you, but I'd eat regular food instead of dog food if I had a choice. See MS and the transition of Hotmail's to MS servers for reference.

Linus dogfood's Linux for instance.

Linus probably doesn't eat his own dog food, he uses Linux because he likes it more. Now, if he would rather use MacOS or whatever, but still uses Linux because he's behind it, that would be eating his own dog food. It's possible, but unlikely. I suspect I'm being trolled.

WTF is it with you kids fucking up phrases you don't understand. If you don't know what it means or where it came from will you fucking please stop god damn pretending you do. And stop calling all unpatched exploits zero day. They stopped being zero day within 24 hours of creation. After that they are just fucking exploits.

Back in the day "zero day" meant "not yet known to affected parties", or generally unknown. What the hell do you mean with "within 24 hours of creation" anyway? At least, now I know I'm being trolled. IHBT, HAND.

Re:Specific Issues (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38139398)

Well there's one thing that never worked for me: Using UbuntuOne from behind a transparent HTTP proxy. Which means none of my Ubuntu work machines could use UbuntuOne.
Last time I checked (granted, a while back), they said it's a "known issue" and will be "addresed".
Or maybe it's something entirely different. I don't care what's happening in the background. All I need is for the damn solution to work :)

Re:Specific Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140748)

Why do people say "reach out"? Do they mean "contact" or "communicate with"?

"Reach out" is ridiculous.

mow3 up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38138566)

For election, I and 4iis cocktail.

Original message from John Lenton (Canonical) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38138754)

From the first days of Ubuntu One, before we were even in Ubuntu, we've
had a structured data storage sync service based around CouchDB.

For the last three years we have worked with the company behind CouchDB
to make it scale in the particular ways we need it to scale in our
server environment. Our situation is rather unique, and we were unable
to resolve some of the issues we came across. We were thus unable to
make CouchDB scale up to the millions of users and databases we have in
our datacentres, and furthermore we were unable to make it scale down to
be a reasonable load on small client machines.

Because of this, we are turning off most of our CouchDB-related
efforts. The contacts, notes and playlists databases will continue to
exist on our servers to support the related services, but direct
external access to the underlying databases will be shut off. Any other
databases will be deleted from our servers entirely.

For these same three years we have created and maintained desktopcouch,
which is a desktop service (and related library) to access CouchDB more
conveniently. Because we are no longer going to pursue CouchDB, we will
no longer be developing desktopcouch; in fact, if anybody wants to take
over, we'll be happy to work with you to make that official. For the
upcoming 12.04 the Ubuntu One packages will not depend on desktopcouch
nor couchdb in any way, and we'd recommend the distribution seriously
consider whether they want to continue having the package in main,
especially if no maintainer shows up.

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.

Thank you for reading.

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-desktop/2011-November/003474.html

Re:Original message from John Lenton (Canonical) (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38139938)

Imagine no CouchDB. It's easy if you try.
- John Lenton

Re:Original message from John Lenton (Canonical) (1)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140642)

Why are they removing CouchDB before they have created its replacement? Surely they can support it for one more release.

Re:Original message from John Lenton (Canonical) (4, Informative)

Beuno (740018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140902)

Because the next release is an LTS, which will now be supported for 5 years. If couchdb is kept for the next release, it will need to be supported to another 5 years.

Re:Original message from John Lenton (Canonical) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38146372)

What about the user data ? will it be migrated to new database automatically or will it be deleted ... ?

Rolling your own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38139722)

Is the ubuntu way. Canonical has got the IBM syndrome.

Re:Rolling your own (3, Informative)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140140)

You did read the same thing I did, right? They *tried* using someone else's solution, and the solution did not fit their needs. If the existing solutions don't fit your needs, what else can you do other than roll your own? I guess you could drop the service/product altogether and just call it a day, but that doesn't sound like a great business model.

Re:Rolling your own (2)

Entrope (68843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140234)

If CouchDB doesn't work, there are at least six other competing solutions that will tell you how they are a better fit for your needs than all the others. Cassandra, Hadoop/HBase, MongoDB, and more. If one doesn't work for you, you can waste as much time as you like trying the others!

Re:Rolling your own (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140348)

Or they could use MySQL, SQLite, etc. instead like the summary mentions?

Re:Rolling your own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38150100)

MySQL would be _utterly_ useless. Try setting up a cluster of 50 MySQL-servers, then imagine trying to set up 250 _million_ MySQL servers. If the networking required for CouchDB was too much, then switching to MySQL obviously isn't an option. And it's only speculation, but networking is likely the issue.

Re:Rolling your own (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140592)

Do those other systems provide for arbitrary peer-to-peer data exchange/sync networks? Last I checked Couch was the only product in the NoSQL line up that provided robust support for distributed data networks.. Maybe I'm wrong or out of date.. Most of the others when I looked were able to sync data but it was for controlled sync among known peers, much the way MySQL and Postgres handle things -- not true/messy master-master replication among disorganized nodes spread around the internet.

Re:Rolling your own (1)

coredog64 (1001648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38143416)

Cassandra can do it but it doesn't have the ability to deal with arbitrarily large binary objects.

Re:Rolling your own (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38145432)

Thanks - good tip on Cassandra. Riak has some capabilities that are close too. I can say that trying to do couch replication with large binary objects across unreliable networks (that is not in the same data center/peer network) is probably not a good idea anyway, even though the spec does support it..

Re:Rolling your own (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38144022)

why does it have to be NoSQL?

Re:Rolling your own (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38145414)

It doesn't - you could accomplish this with NNTP if you put enough work into it (we looked at that possibility for our implementation). Certainly you could do this with a SQL system or an rsync file distribution with custom file indices. I'm just saying that in my experience couchdb gives you more out of the box to accomplish this type of set up than anything else I've found. You can get further faster with this approach if you have the kinds of requirements I was describing, IMO.

Of course I'm open to something else if it's better for this, but up to now I haven't seen anything that comes close for this, including other NoSQL databases.

Re:Rolling your own (2)

funfail (970288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38149204)

Lotus Notes does (maybe better). If you ignore the hate about its user interface, the server component (Lotus Domino) is very robust and scalable as a NoSQL provider.

Actually, Damien (author of CouchDB) is a former Lotus engineer and modeled his creation similar to Notes Storage File (NSF) structure.

Re:Rolling your own (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38150164)

Yeah - that's a good point. Damien specifically modeled Couch off of the good parts of Lotus Notes distribution (remember when IBM kept saying Lotus notes isn't really an email product - it just does email as a side effect? I now know why they were saying that). That said, it would be hard for my project to choose closed-licensed COTS when an OSS alternative like couch exists. Recognizing Lotus is almost certainly many times more robust and better engineered than couch for all these purposes. Thanks for pointing this option out.

Re:Rolling your own (1)

funfail (970288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38173374)

While not open source, it is now very competititvely priced. You might check out the licensing terms of the new IBM XWork server [edbrill.com], which is nothing but Domino server with a fixed annual cost of around $2K:

Re:Rolling your own (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141218)

There are far more than 6 other vendors who will be glad to tell me how they are better and fit my needs better than the other guys ... and much like you, I'd be an idiot if I thought any of them had a clue.

Just because someone thinks their stuff kicks all ass for every situation doesn't make it actually true.

Re:Rolling your own (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141084)

This being the open-source world, you work with them to improve it, or worst case fork it to add the functionality you need. It's hard to say exactly what's going on without more details, but it seems like that should be easier and better than reimplementing it all from scratch.

Re:Rolling your own (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38144014)

NO,NO,NO! Don't ever "roll your own" if there is something feasible already available. Too often you will end up making the same mistakes others did, possibly as long ago as 30+ years. Whenever possible take advantage of others experience (and blood, sweat, and tears) by using something existing so you don't do a poor job reinventing the wheel. And the advantage of open source is you can take someone elses work and build around it.

OK, I'll get off my soap box.

Re:Rolling your own (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140330)

Huh? They are swapping their database abstraction layer so they can more easily use other backends like MySQL, SQLite, etc. instead of being tied to only couchdb. How exacty is that a bad thing? They aren't "rolling their own" since they are wanting to use already existing databases.

This is news to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140092)

People use ubuntu one?

Re:This is news to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140236)

I do.

Re:This is news to me (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140512)

Free cloud storage with syncing software preinstalled with the distro. What's not to like? (Aside from the fact it's a cloud service at all- which many people seem surprisingly at ease with).

I don't use it, because I can't think of a reason to. But if you must have 5GB of data in cloud service, I can't see any reason why not Ubuntu One.

Why did syncing become so difficult? (2)

drx (123393) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140352)

I wonder what became so difficult about syncing data that it has to be re-invented all the time?

I was happy using tools like rsync, diff and unison for a long time, until the moment when even Linux desktop software is too posh to store their data in files.

Now every software uses another database, at one time even Amarok used a MySQL backend. What is better about this than just putting the data in a file? Or at least making this file the Single Point Of Truth? If you need the database for speed, you can check if the file changed since the last time and then update the database from the file's contents. But simple files have been syncing and merging and everything perfectly for ages. Now it seems like every software needs its own syncing service.

Is there any reason for this, except brading the most simple things (like copying a file), or making money with cloud storage?

Re:Why did syncing become so difficult? (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140754)

I had the same set of thoughts. There are a ton of long standing solutions to these sorts of problems that would have served their needs far better than storing crap in a database. I don't get it either... If inode limits became a problem, there are lots of ways around that as well...

Re:Why did syncing become so difficult? (1)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141076)

I wonder what became so difficult about syncing data that it has to be re-invented all the time?

I was happy using tools like rsync, diff and unison for a long time, until the moment when even Linux desktop software is too posh to store their data in files.

The indoctrination has reached you, too. It's not the software's data, it's your data, dammit. It should be in a documented format, readable by any application and friendly to rsync, version control et cetera.

Re:Why did syncing become so difficult? (1)

drx (123393) | more than 2 years ago | (#38146028)

Thanks for pointing out this freudian language glitch!

This actually sums up what I want to say. Most data could be stored and synced fine inside of files, even unicode text files most of the time, no binary. I don't need my chat logs in a database, I don't need calendar or contacts in a database. Especially if it is one that is running outside my user space and is not affected by backing up my home directory.

Re:Why did syncing become so difficult? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141244)

rsync has to be reinvented because its license is obnoxious.

diff and unison aren't efficient enough fi you're the poor bastard paying for bandwidth to/from the client for what is essentially a free service.

Re:Why did syncing become so difficult? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38143992)

rsync has to be reinvented because its license is obnoxious.

$ cat /usr/share/doc/rsync/copyright

COPYRIGHT
---------

Copyright (C) 1996-2011 by Andrew Tridgell, Wayne Davison, and others.

Rsync was originally written by Andrew Tridgell and is currently
maintained by Wayne Davison. It has been improved by many developers
from around the world.

Rsync may be used, modified and redistributed only under the terms of
the GNU General Public License, found in the file: /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3

on Debian systems, or at

    http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html [fsf.org]

Re:Why did syncing become so difficult? (2)

plopez (54068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38143964)

I would put my money on sloppy code that made the DB engine inefficient as well as ACID issues. Synching in real time in a distributed environment and staying ACID compliant is a *hard* problem. See this guy's research for some of the gory details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gray_(computer_scientist) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why did syncing become so difficult? (1)

drx (123393) | more than 2 years ago | (#38146034)

Syncing in real time is really something file systems don't seem to handle well. But that's more an issue with real time collaboration, not with syncing some documents and settings across a few devices.

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140366)

At least they're keeping Unity!

Dear God.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140886)

They're not migrating from CouchDB to Unity, are they?

Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141920)

Every time I see CouchDB, I read douchebag.

let them be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38144584)

why just dont let Ubuntu do what they want? if they want to develop U1DB, its fine! if you want to keep couchdb in ubuntu one, why dont just take the software and keep it alive ? its not a big deal ...

Why Canonical dropped CouchDB (1)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | more than 2 years ago | (#38145864)

Canonical would be moving away from CouchDB due to a few unresolvable issues

Of course they'd want to drop CouchDB. It's clearly not web scale.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...