Why is Fauna doing this?

I would like to post some questions for the core team and founders of FaunaDB. I have not found any public statement in regard to these questions so I am posting them here.

  1. Why did FaunaDB make the decision to be closed-source?

  2. Why did FaunaDB make the decision to not offer an on-premise version?

  3. Why are so many articles claiming that FaunaDB offers on-premise but in fact they don’t?

Moreover, Fauna does not bind you to the cloud. It is available as a managed cloud service or as a downloadable JAR, machine image, or container — that you can run on premise

A node is a single computer with its own IP address in which FaunaDB is installed and running. The Fauna nodes can run on all public cloud services, including Amazon, Azure, Bluemix, and Google, in addition to running on a private cloud, an on-premise solution, a virtual machine, a docker image, and several other platforms.
(Introduction to FaunaDB Clusters. FaunaDB is a mission critical, NoSQL… | by Fauna Inc | Fauna | Medium)

Importantly, Fauna doesn’t bind you to the cloud. It’s available as a managed cloud service or a downloadable JAR, machine image or container that you can run on premises.

Weaver: DynamoDB and Firebase are not general purpose. DynamoDB is a key/value database with some extensions, and Firebase is a hierarchical database–a model I haven’t seen since MUMPS. Neither of them are geo-replicated, and they both lock you into a single cloud vendor forever with no on-premises or multi-cloud options.

(same article as before) FaunaDB can be run on-premises or in the cloud. It is also provided as a service with no operational involvement currently running on AWS and GCP with the prospect on making it available on Azure soon.

There a more but just to name a few … ^

I really wonder why these decisions has been made. FaunaDB could indeed be a killer database and the company behind offering managed services could be worth a lot more with a lot more customers, but users like me (and i believe there are a lot of them just have a very hard time making the decision to move to fauna).

  • not offering on-premise is a risk as i have customers who might be interested in this and that would mean that i have to maintain two front-ends and potentially even two back-ends if the differences between my on-premise db and fauna are too big

  • not open sourcing makes it hard to trust faunadb as almost all companies that are not cloud providers are open source. Yugabyte and Mongodb don’t have the same functionality, sure but they would be an alternative for most faunadb users. Also, it would be cooler to be able to just post on github or create a pr for a feature i want instead of making a forum feature request post.
    But maybe the community does not care as no one really participated in the recent threads about open source - but why does no one care? BTW, when I say trust I am also referring to the ability to attract great talent in the database business (Supabase CEO wrote a great article about that and there is a similar thread from a few days ago talking about this on the forum) and I am referring to the actual code. I know that Kyle (jepsen) tested the db but as far as I know these tests are always closed source.

So again… why is FaunaDB moving into this direction while they could easily be a killer database with open sourcing and on-premise options. IMO communities would also get much more active and looking at Supabase, it is really amazing to see what innovations emerge at the intersection of the core team and their users.

Apparently there is a link posting threshold on this forum for new users so here are the missing ones.

Sorry, I just want to make sure that I post all of these articles, here is the link for the last citation I added:

FaunaDB launched as a serverless managed service in 2017. Since then it has added new deployment options including an Enterprise On-Premises option for more traditional customers who are not ready for the public cloud yet.
Why are NoSQL Databases Becoming Transactional? - The Distributed SQL Blog

This is literally me but it is simply not true that Fauna offers this so how can it be that everyone is saying this?

I think they may have offered an on-prem service a while ago for some (very large) companies that were also early adopters, hence the articles. However, in my opinion, it’s not clear that an on-prem service would be a good idea for clients, so I’m not surprised that there’s no mentioning of it here.

Fauna isn’t your typical DB service; the implementation is likely sprawling and complex, involving multiple containers, services, batch jobs and the like. I’m not sure what the best analogy is, but it certainly won’t be like maintaining Postgres, which you can just plant on a container (or multiple, with read-replicas / sharding) and expect to work. I’d guess it would be a small nightmare maintaining an on-prem version of Fauna yourself.