It is not that complicated. Just pay(monthly)for a storage Box at Hetzner(just an example provider i trust) or any other provider and your Data is still there in 30 years. - https://www.hetzner.com/storage-box?country=gb
From my point of view the term holds another problem. It sounds like you can't use/host the provided "Rendezvous Server" at all and must also write your own to connect the people.
I definitely don't read it that way. But I suppose that's part of the problem with writing your own license modifications: They may be open to interpretation, whereas most common licenses are already well-understood.
Adobe Experience Manager (AEM/CQ) is at its core open source. But you're right in that manner, that they don't promote these projects or help them to grow.
But the use of an alternative is only possible, if the alternative is on/near the same level of usablity as the product that is market leader. If it's not the case, than most users won't switch and there is also the factor of the "mental burden" to switch to a product you're not used to and stay in the "preferred loop".
Just have a look at Timescale. It's a open source postgresql extension, and can sit side by side with other stuff. Scaling
postgresql should be no problem for you.
I don't think PostgreSQL scales nice horizontally. I do use TimescaleDB though and it scales really nice vertically, but would probably be hard to make it run on multiple machines.
I see timescale more as an alternative option, since the OP also aksed for this. - And you're right, since Timescale is an postgresql extensions, it also has the same benefits/problems as postgresql itself in this manner.
Here are some more details on our future plans for clustering. We do have horizontal scale-out clustering on our roadmap and it's hard to say exactly when it will be released, but we are aiming for the 2nd half of 2018.
That said, we do often find that there multiple reasons why people ask about "clustering" or say they need scale-out:
A. Because you want to scale the amount of available storage - (we allow you to elastically add disks to scale-up the capacity on a single hypertable, have had customers scale a single hypertable to 500B rows)
B. Because you want high availability - (we support this today, via PostgreSQL streaming replication and will be documenting this further)
C. Because you want to support more concurrent queries -
(supported today across primary replicas)
D. Because you want to support high ingest rates - (depending on your use case, we have users doing 100-400k rows / second)
E. Because you want to parallelize individual queries (that touch a lot of data) - (some support for parallelization today, more to come)
So we do meet the needs of many today without support for full scale-out clustering (scaling vertically, as jurgenwerk points out). If your requirements are closer to millions of rows per second inserts and storing 100s of TBs / PBs of data, we can't yet support this, but working towards it!
It is not about the right to appear in Google's search results. It is about abusing market dominance to put competing businesses at disadvantage. There are also other running/solved cases/investigations against Google.
You're strongly implying some kind of targeting by Google. Whereas the parent comments above you indicate simply a lack of caring by ProtonMail to improve its ranking or a lack of free general support by Google to any website that happens, not just ProtonMail.
Asking Google to be responsive to any website demanding special treatment for higher search rankings is unreasonable. Best practices are published and tools are available. It's hard to see monopolistic abuse there.
The only difference is that Gmail (and other Google products) are listed when you, shockingly, go to google.com. Are you saying Google can't mention Google products on google.com? Do you think gmail is somehow not as popular as it is and wouldn't rate the #1 spot for searches for email?
Promising to provide tech support and troubleshooting to every website in the world for free is a lot to ask of a search engine, even if they're the dominant market leader.
You say that, but we can't even get Internet as a utility currently. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying something as basic as internet is being abused "for profit", search being made into a utility sounds vastly more difficult.
I like to think we are indeed slowly progressing, but at the same time it's clear that companies in power are "progressing" too. I'm unsure if humanitarian goals like this are possible if we regard them as "sooner or later it'll happen".
it only is abusing if they push their products before others, if you fail to rank highly in search results whose fault is that?
are we going to use the IE solution, but instead now force it on providers whom you have to voluntarily choose over another to provide selected results? who gets to choose who appears?
No it isn't. If you want to ensure that you're in the search results then you're supposed to buy an ad.
Edit: To everyone downvoting, can you explain why you expect to be provided guaranteed service from a business that you have no business relationship with?
