Looks like the committers for the Apache HBase project agreed with my assesment of a recent InformationWeek article pitting representatives from the HBase project and the Cassandra project against each other in a copy-pasted-argument style debate. The gist of my argument was that the article posed a question to the debaters that was focused on HBase, prompting pro- and anti-HBase arguments instead of Cassandra vs. HBase arguments, which is what I would have preferred.
Here's one of the quotes from the HBase committers' response article:
When Jonathan veers off to talk of the HBase community being “fragmented”
with divided “[l]eadership”, we think perhaps what is being referred to
is the fact that the Apache HBase project is not an “owned” project, a
project led by a single vendor. Rather it is a project where multiple
teams from many organizations - Cloudera, Hortonworks, Salesforce,
Facebook, Yahoo, Intel, Twitter, and Taobao, to name a few - are all
pushing the project forward in collaboration.
-- Lars Hofhansl, Andrew Purtell, and Michael Stack
There will always be valid arguments both ways, as you can see from some sample tweets below.
And some people didn't think the response article either:
@amansk That article looked more like a pitch for MapR's proprietary HBase than Apache HBase. It was more to catch eyeballs over anything.— Prashanth Babu (@P7h) August 14, 2013
I think we just need to remember to take these hastily produced debates with a grain of salt.