Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The race to replace Redis

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 520 posts

Re: The race to replace Redis

#231

Post by sakjur »

verdverm wrote: post #68
nerdponx wrote: post #41

Isn't this the reason why AGPL has started to get more popular? Everyone has to play by the very strict rules except the copyright holder, who can do whatever they want, but the community still benefits from the core software being open source. The BSD license in particular seems like a particularly bad way to run a business.

I see more of a shift to open core. Many large orgs just say no to viral licenses, and in choosing AGPL, you put blockers to adoption. Open core releases some of the project under permissive license, and keeps some private or under a permissions license. We are all still trying to figure out how we can have sustainable open source where people can be paid to work on it full time

If you’re happy with paying a few maintainers, a support staff, and some salespeople the cash flow necessary for being a successful endeavor is a whole lot different than if you’ve raised $350 million.

Maybe the problem lies more with overreaching and trying to cash out?

Re: The race to replace Redis

#232

Post by rmbyrro »

c0l0 wrote: post #223
Kwpolska wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article lists the other contenders for the title of new Redis, and I think Redict is going to be the least successful thanks to its founder, niche hosting site, and the hostile AGPL licence.

It's not AGPL, but L GPL-3.0-only. Neither of these licenses is "hostile". And ftr, in my eyes, a project being created/initiated by ddevault is an asset, certainly not a liability.

You are correct. The issue is that any [X]GPL license has bad reputation in business environments. They see it as a big legal risk that will require constant legal supervision over the technical usage of GPL-licensed code.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#233

Post by radicalbyte »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #170
dkuntz2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except for the fact that "redis" the organization didn't create redis and isn't even the main developer of redis. The origin of Redis the company is literally as a hosting provider for the open source redis that they didn't create.

I believe that Redis has an agreement of sorts with Salvatore Sanfilippo / Antirez, the creator of Redis.

Amazon / Google / Microsoft made a massive mistake by not hiring Antirez, it's chump change for them to throw him $1-2M a year at him so he can work on Redis for them full time.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#234

Post by vasco »

exe34 wrote: post #194
vasco wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you own the copyrights you had money to spend at some point. Other than that unless you are one of the contributors you are leeching, just different flavors of leeching.

Is buying the same as leaching now? Words really do get diluted to the point of meaningless...

How does buying a copyright to a name, literally just being able to call it "Redis" equate to purchasing the code contributions that individual contributors make? They bought the rights to the name, not the project, the project was open-source until the license change and belongs to society as a whole.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#235

Post by dragonwriter »

thayne wrote: post #154
ajmurmann wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's also how DB companies try to monetize. So a hyperscaler offering this directly really undermines your entire business. In the past you could offer a Enterprise version with support, but with the move to the cloud that market is shrinking and Amazon is eating the new market themselves

Perhaps we need a different way to fund database development (not necessarily a single company monetizing it). If the service you provide is hosting DBs, you are are at an inherent disadvantage competing with hosted db offerings form your potential customers' cloud provider. Even if your product is technically superior in every way, you are another entity they have to do business with (billing, support, contracts, se…

> Perhaps we need a different way to fund database development (not necessarily a single company monetizing it).

We have several in use by long-running open source database projects that have not felt a need to jump on proprietary source-available licensing, even though firms like AWS are indeed using their code and selling services.

AWS (and other big firms with hosted services) are also sponsoring those DBs with code and/or money, but in many cases the basic model predates the big push to the cloud, and other downstream businesses were doing that before AWS and other cloud hosts.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#236

Post by noirscape »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #89
jacooper wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker was only phased out in red hat distros because they don't like it and want to push Podman. Others still have docker packaged in their repos.

It's not in Debian and their wiki straight up directs you to podman with a nice big scary warning about dockers root issue. https://wiki.debian.org/Docker Docker is dyeing on linux podman will be the only one that remains.

No? Sorry if that's a bit cynical, but Docker is only dying in the opinion of distro maintainers. By this metric, it's been dying for the past 8 years, but everyone is still talking about Docker, not podman.

A related problem I've seen from other complaints made elsewhere is that podman does things just slightly different enough than Docker that it's not a true drop-in replacement.

We've seen that before; where distro maintainers declared software too dangerous/prematurely dead for a while. All it resulted in was community hosted repositories for the old software. (Read: this is why avconv failed.)

Re: The race to replace Redis

#237

Post by sverhagen »

jpc0 wrote: post #191
x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the linked article, Amazon has contributed 5% of the contributions to Redis, while Redis, the company, has contributed 20%.

I'm not for or against in this case. I'm anti what Redis the company is doing but I don't give a crap otherwise. Are we really counting contribution based on LoC? Haven't we over the decades decided that isn't valid? Guess every person that makes this claim should once again have their performance based on LoC... Some simple examples, I'm not saying this is the case though. What if most of Amazon's contributions are…

> Are we really counting contribution based on LoC?

I think they didn't include the LoC in the article as anything other than a broad estimate of contributions, perhaps for lack of any better measurements.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#238

Post by rmbyrro »

BoorishBears wrote: post #73
gymbeaux wrote: post #67

AWS also forked ElasticSearch into their “OpenSearch” DBaaS. It caused some issues at my last job because OpenSearch limited us to a particular version of the NEST .NET library that was missing some newer functionality. Real bummer and feels like a step in the wrong direction given all we’ve accomplished in tech over the last 20 years.

OpenSearch infuriates me to no end. It lacks so many improvements and advancements since the ancient version it was forked at, but because AWS already has an org's payments details, teams often refuse to look at Elasticsearch. Even basic things like autocompleting queries have been WIP for half a decade now: https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/sample-code/... https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSear…

Linux distros also infuriate me sometimes, but:

1. I'm not using Mac-jail-OS

2. I'm not insane to even remotely consider the possibility of using Windows

So, yea, I'm using OpenSearch.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#239

Post by blitzar »

renegade-otter wrote: post #214
IshKebab wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're vastly overestimating how much companies want to pay for support.

And if they do pay for support - it will be to Jeff Bezos and not some raggy startup of five. Support is usually for big corporate clients, and the Cover Your Ass principle works in full force there. "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM".

They wont get totally cut out though - Jeff Bezos will send the bugs they find while servicing their $10mil a year service contract to the raggy startup of five to fix over a weekend between their 3 jobs while sustaining themselves on the most expensive food they can afford - a bowl of discount ramen.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#240

Post by verdverm »

lukaszwojtow wrote: post #203
verdverm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see more of a shift to open core. Many large orgs just say no to viral licenses, and in choosing AGPL, you put blockers to adoption. Open core releases some of the project under permissive license, and keeps some private or under a permissions license. We are all still trying to figure out how we can have sustainable open source where people can be paid to work on it full time

If AGPL blocks adoption then "large orgs" can buy commercial license (assuming software is dual-licensed).

They can, but the issue is how much effort does that require for a random dev in the org to go through to try out a project?

It's not a technical blocker, it's a psychological blocker

Post reply on HN