Thanks for the feedback! We will definitely be adjusting our pitch in further iterations.
If it's written to attract potential users, however, then it's woefully light on useful content. I don't care in the slightest about your views on tech monopolies - why on earth waste such a huge amount of space talking about this? What I care about are three things: 1) what workloads does it do well and, and which ones does it do poorly at (if you don't tell me about the latter I won't believe you - no storage system is great at everything). 2) What consistency/availability model does it use, and 3) how you've tested it.
As written, it's full of fluff and vague handwavy promises (we have PhDs!) - the only technical information in the entire post is that it's written in rust. For users of your application, what programming language it's written in is about the least interesting thing possible to say about it. Even going through your docs I can't find a single proper discussion of your consistency and availability model, which is a huge red flag to me.
Sorry it didn't float your boat. You're just not the article's target audience I guess! (And, to answer your question: the target audience is mildly-knowledgeable but politically concerned citizens.)
I agree this is maybe not the type of post you'd expect on HN. But, we don't want to _compete_ with other object stores. We want to expand the application domain of distributed data stores.
> I can't find a single proper discussion of your consistency and availability model
LGTM, I would be dubious too. This will come in time, please be patient (the project is less than 2 yo!). You know Cypherunks' saying? "We write code." Well, for now, we've been focusing on the code, and we want to continue doing so until 1.0. Some by-standers will do the paperware for sure, but it's not our utmost priority.
Re: the paperwork vs code thing - While a full white paper on your theoretical foundations would be nice, IMO the table stakes for getting people to take your product seriously is a sentence or two on the model you're using. For example, adding something like: "We aim to prioritise consistency and partition tolerance over availability, and use the raft algorithm for leader elections. Our particular focus is making sure the storage system is really good at handling X and Y." or whatever would be a huge improvement, until you can get around to writing up the details.
The problem with "we write code" is that your users are unlikely to trust you to be writing the correct code, when there's so little evidence that you've thought deeply about how to solve the hard problems inherent in distributed storage.
You will find a more streamlined presentation of Garage on our landing page at https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/
Technical details are also documented (although it is insufficient and needs an overhaul): https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/documentation/design/
Thank you for your comments!
True.
> but lately I've returned to the theory that language choice for a project signals a certain amount of technical sophistication.
Sometimes it can signal the opposite, if you think a given language/framework/other is not a great tool for the job. For a relatively new project it can be a sign that there might be otherwise avoidable growing pains later.
From an open source standpoint what a project is written using can be very important from the point of view of what you are familiar with. If the project progress or support vanishes (for instance if the core maintainers move on to other things for whatever reason, or there is a significant license change making future work on the core project incompatible with your use) would others be able to maintain it securely in a fork and if no one else steps up would you be able to (at least until you migrated onto something else)?