multiwoven VS rfcs

Multiwoven is now a leading Open Source Alternative to Hightouch, Census, and Rudderstack.

It's been a great journey so far, and we are excited to announce a major update to Multiwoven - our new release, Multiwoven 0.2.0, is now available!

Repo: https://github.com/Multiwoven/multiwoven

This release brings a host of new features, enhancements, and bug fixes to streamline data syncs and user experience.

From new connectors to advanced reporting dashboards, as a team, we have been working hard on these updates based on the feedback and requests from our customers and the community.

- 10+ new connectors added to Multiwoven, including

Repo: [https://github.com/Multiwoven/multiwoven]

Data movement has become a critical part of the modern data stack. more and more companies are evolving within the data movement space. The entire data movement landscape can be broken down into below product categories:

Data storage:

Congrats on the launch, I am building an OSS Reverse ETL project called Multiwoven (https://github.com/Multiwoven/multiwoven), built on top of many dev tools, frameworks etc. We manage to ship it using docker-compose to devs, wondering where does Flox fit in, can you help me understand with an use-case while docker exists?

(https://github.com/Multiwoven/multiwoven)

All the best & I'll watch your repo :)

Open Source No-Code data activation from Postgres to Airtable

https://github.com/Multiwoven/multiwoven

While the CDP market is growing rapidly, there is also too much noise and confusion around CDP vendors.

Today, most companies are unifying their customer data in a data warehouse. Data warehouses like Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift, and others are becoming the single source of truth for companies and growing rapidly.

Naturally, companies want to make use of this data, and a CDP implementation becomes a natural choice.

But what companies fail to understand is that data control and ownership is a critical aspect of a CDP, companies tend to give away access to their datawarehouse to CDP vendors, which could lead to data privacy and security issues.

Today, open-source is growing rapidly, and companies are looking for open-source alternatives to every solution. Self-hosting and owning control of the data is a most preferred choice for companies.

That's exactly we are leading the charge with the first open-source warehouse native CDP.

Repo Link - https://github.com/Multiwoven/multiwoven

This is interesting, we are building https://github.com/Multiwoven/multiwoven an open-source ReverseETL and workflow orchestration is a big part of our platform, maybe I ca experiment with small use-case like setting up backend tests using flows.

The announcement just added more love to Ruby and the entire Rails community. When we started our oss journey, we were often questioned about why we chose Ruby and the suggestions to many other languages. https://github.com/Multiwoven/multiwoven

We are happy to see that Ruby is still the language of choice for many developers and companies. We can't wait to see what Ubicloud will bring to the Ruby community.

I'm afraid the letter spread some misinformation: The meson RFC has in fact not been approved: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132

You may consider this view biased, but we have this: https://srid.ca/nixos-mod

* September 2023: The "Nix Community Survey 2023" is looking for gender data, and the mods don't like that most contributors are men.

* November 2023: The moderation team tries to institute a Code of Conduct https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/114 ... and they get their way

* November 2023: Some are not happy about it: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-team-accountability... -- the moderators talk about their "authority" and of course lock and hide the thread. It's "disruptive" and "off-topic", you see.

* This sort of activity continues -- moderators consolidating and increasing their power, citing how they need the power to control "concern trolls" and such -- and now in April 2024, we get https://save-nix-together.org/

The "anonymous contributors" want to drive out the NixOS founder entirely, so that _they_ are in charge. They want "to hold people accountable for bad behaviour at all levels" and lament having "responsibility without authority" - in other words, they want power, power, power. They want power over everyone. Their justification is that they believe they have the moral high ground, and they deserve to lord it over everyone else.

Hold onto that hard power, Eelco, and tell this lot to fork the project. Let's see how they enjoy moderating noxious.org instead of nixos.org

https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ceiz36/thoughts_on_...

And the RFC to improve the situation:

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/175

> (after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!)

Clicking that link takes us to a PR that was opened on 2024-02-02. The initial response from the Nix author comes 7 minutes later. Puck has multiple back and forths with other members Github, but her next interaction with the Nix author comes the next day on 2024-02-03. This is also the first time in the conversation where she "reminds him ... to even read her PR message". There's a second interaction later that same day during which she does similar, but it's worth noting this is pointing to a different message and appears to be less a "reminder to read" and more re-iterating what they feel is their argument against the Nix author's own arguments. Puck then continues to have back and forth with other commenters but as of today, there has been no further comments from the Nix author after 2024-02-03, and no further comments from Puck after 2024-02-08.

This hardly to my mind qualifies either as "having to remind him multiple times to even read her PR message at all" or "after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!" So as I said it's a fairly weak claim, and feels more like a "bastard eating crackers" reaction to the PR than an actual showing of poor behavior.

As for the "Meson example", I didn't ignore it. As I stated in my comment, I had at that point read two of the referenced discussions in detail, and thus commented on them. I didn't comment in the "Meson example" for the simple reason that I hadn't read it.

I have read it now, and equally find it confusing.

1) The claim in the letter is that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years", yet the RFC itself only appears to have been opened 2022-08-24. It's been a while since grade school for me, and I'll admit COVID has warped all our sense of time, but I'm pretty sure 2022 is not 5 years ago.

2) The first completed working implementation of the change doesn't appear to have been done until 2023-01-18 (https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-13874661...). Again this is much less than 5 years old.

3) On 2023-03-20, the author of the PR for this change states:

> the RFC has made it past most of the early stages and the current goal is to achieve parity with the current buildsystem before replacing it.

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-14768433...)

Again, this doesn't seem to fit at all with the claim that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years"

4) On 2023-11-01, the Nix author themselves asks for updates on the RFC implementation, an action which doesn't seem congruent with someone who is willy nilly single handedly blocking things and being a disruption to the process. And the author of the PR states:

>the main block is actually a lack of free time for the main devs!

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-17890770...)

This doesn't seem to point to evidence that the Nix author is single handedly holding up this process.

5) On 2024-03-21 the PR author notes:

> currently working on adding support to build nix-perl, waiting for assistance

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-20135356...)

Not to sound like a broken record, but if the issue isn't finished as of a few weeks ago, it can hardly be considered to be held up by the Nix author for 5 years.

I agree that one of the links in the open letter is to a comment on a PR from 2019, which is indeed 5 year ago, and does indeed contain the Nix author commenting that they are skeptical of the change because "he doesn't know meson but knows his own build system". But given that there's an entire wealth of history on the topic since then, including progress on the feature that appears completely unobstructed by the Nix author and an open PR that is a mere 3 weeks old for a current implementation, I find myself again unconvinced of this rampant bad behavior on the part of the Nix author. And I reiterate again that these complaints are very weak and don't do much to support the open letter at best, and act as contrary evidence at worst.

Again there might be other context to be had that is missing, but if one is going to write a massive "open letter" complaining about bad behavior, I expect the links in that letter to point to actual bad behavior, and or provide the relevant context necessary to show how what appears to be normal dissent is a passive aggressive continuation of obstruction. I have to assume the links one provides in an open letter is their strongest evidence, and if this is all the authors have... I am unconvinced.

Nix with dynamic derivations (RFC92) could potentially beat this curse.

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0092-plan-dyn...

See: A plan to stabilize the new CLI and Flakes incrementally https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136

NixOS recently introduced "problem" infrastructure to deal with such problems more gracefully and explicitly:

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0127-issues-w...

For some more context: Flawed as they are, Flakes solve a large number of problems Nix experiences without them. This is why I, and presumably many others, use them even in their current experimental state.

An RFC was recently accepted to commit to forming a plan towards stabilization of Flakes: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136

Personally, I don't believe there won't be any breaking changes, but I also believe that the stabilization of Flakes is still a ways away and hope that there will be a reasonable migration path.