Also - get rid of the duplicates of different sizes, such as when you send a photo over your phone to a friend, it makes a copy that is resized.
That's not a dupe, but a cache. Typically you want those kept so that it doesn't have to recalculate each time. But not always. But that would be a different database mechanism rather than a dupe finder.
Did anyone use it at all during the 'trial' period? or did end users just at it and walk away?
I love the fact that the company at least was willing to try something - then move to something else.. instead of just being stuck.. it might be costly to do so.. but at least they are working toward a solution they will hopefully like and works well for them.
Yes. It was used by a trial group. But then afterwards, it was never a) forced or b) even pushed on the main users.
It looks like the whole issue was due to their use of some weird distro years ago.
That article technically doesn't say why they need Windows now, so for all I know they have some new weird requirements I don't know about, but assuming they don't, I think the decision to go to Windows is a horrible idea. They'd be much better off going to Ubuntu instead.
Yes I upvoted a post about how Ubuntu would be better than an alternative. Please no heart attacks people.
"Critical" means everything outside "critical" is OK from the sources. So it's like "critical" is even more a niche than "any" production usage. That's why I think this wording is not fit: every production load (ie in a company) makes sense. Hobbyist is clearly not related to "production", that's why "critical" word isn't needed here
Critical in the business sense, means I need support, supporting it yourself is not an option.
if you are a SaaS vendor looking at building software that uses MongoDB somewhere, you'd better get a lawyer looking over this license and how it applies to you.
This is becoming a bigger issue as the biggest SaaS vendors hide behind this clause more and more with incredibly proprietary forks. They offer very little to no actual core development or contribution and it goes against the previous method of GPL code getting funding.
It annoys me, as the legal headaches of contributing internal only use code back will block some companies from using OSS, but I see it both ways.
The startups who are doing a lot of the core housekeeping of NOSQL platforms are learning they can't find a business model. This is getting messier and messier.
Partially because there are just too any vendors involved.
What's amazing, though, is that a move like this took a customer who was very into MongoDB and using it in projects and was literally working with MongoDB's own hosted product and now looking to avoid it like the plague.
So at least in this one case, they are likely losing hosted product from this. And gaining nothing. I imagine a lot of customers going through this same process.