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

341–350 of 520 posts

Re: The race to replace Redis

#341

Post by radicalbyte »

alex_duf wrote: post #300
radicalbyte wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean I love redis, but Amazon Google and Microsoft all probably have readily available in memory key/value stores at hand. Throw a little money and they can make it redis compatible, so we wouldn't have to re-write any code. Redis is great as an off-the shelf component, but it's not exactly rocket science to re-implement for a big corporation. So redis doesn't really have any leverage in my opinion.

It's all about branding and name recognition: they all profit from Redis via their cloud offerings. They have a strong incentive to support it and to have it as a viable open source project. Similar to other key opensource infrastructure.

Then their cloud-specific solutions are the up-sell (and lock-in).

Re: The race to replace Redis

#342

Post by tjpnz »

blackoil wrote: post #40
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #38

Engineers have to eat too. Nothing wrong with charging for support. I love passion projects as much as anyone, but there is a reason they are hobbies, and people need to keep a day job. Eventually it does get tiring to do support for free. Edit: Ok. I was talking OSS generally. I guess Redis is being bad actor if they are taking OSS work and running away with it to get the money, and not compensating the contributors…

I think the main issue is bait and switch. You start with a license, get lots of external contributors who are working for free, get ecosystem built around it for free and then change because you want to be paid.

Bait and switch sounds wrong in this context. It's not like they planned this whole thing fifteen years in advance.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#344

Post by neonsunset »

fmajid wrote: post #340
CyanLite2 wrote: post #196

Microsoft's Garnet has the best chance of replacing Redis, the OSS project and the hosting company. Article doesn't mention it, but supposedly Microsoft uses novel algorithms and multi threading to achieve an order of magnitude improvement in throughput. Now if they can commercialize it with Azure, it should be a credible alternative to Redis Enterprise hosting.

No, it’s built using the .NET stack most Linux users won’t touch with a 20-ft pole.

It’s a very unfortunate but classic myopic view of a hopefully smaller part of Linux community. Where-as .NET in reality is often easier to contribute to than a random project they are using with owner having ego issues.

It’s a stack they are looking for but keep missing right under their nose.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#345

Post by neonsunset »

AtNightWeCode wrote: post #335
CyanLite2 wrote: post #196

Microsoft's Garnet has the best chance of replacing Redis, the OSS project and the hosting company. Article doesn't mention it, but supposedly Microsoft uses novel algorithms and multi threading to achieve an order of magnitude improvement in throughput. Now if they can commercialize it with Azure, it should be a credible alternative to Redis Enterprise hosting.

To not support the FLUSHALL command suggests that Azure is the goal with the project.

Why?

Re: The race to replace Redis

#346

Post by freeAgent »

rmbyrro wrote: post #331
konschubert wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want to make money with the software they built.

They want to make ludicrous profits on the software others have built for them. There's nothing wrong with making money and being profitable. But they have to justify investments taken with greed. This license change is motivated by greed, not by "making money" fairly.

You are privy to Redis, Inc’s financials? You seem pretty confident that they are profitable.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#347

Post by chii »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #313
Macha wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's we though? The former Garantia data did, but redis users didn't. (And also I'd argue most of redis' value to users was already in place before the VC backed company got involved)

You’re right of course. From my point of view managed databases only really make sense for toy projects, if you’re using these things at scale it’s much more economical to buy some servers and hire some people of your own, and use plain pre-VC Redis. But big corporations seem to have some kind of a fetish for lighting money on fire, and the fight here is fundamentally over in whose fireplace to do it.

> From my point of view managed databases only really make sense for toy projects

it is more expensive to buy managed, but you offload work. I would imagine toy projects are more cash constrained, and makes more sense to rent cheap servers and roll your own.

On the other hand, larger scale projects would rather pay to offload the work of managing and scaling redis.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#348

Post by crabmusket »

kqr wrote: post #162

I liked Andrew Kelleys perspective on this: let's treat Redict as a rename of the Redis project, and the project now called "Redis" a weird commercial fork of Redict. https://andrewkelley.me/post/redis-renamed-to-redict.html

> Redict is a Finished Product

I am keenly looking on to see if the people involved in Redict see it the same way. As a user of Redis, I would like to switch to one of these open-source forks, and to be honest one which is "done" and focused on maintenance, bug fixes etc. rather than new features sounds more attractive.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#349

Post by freeAgent »

smt88 wrote: post #50
aurareturn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. People here always seem to react badly to companies that provide something for free and now want to make a bit of money. It’s weird because they themselves work in tech and have to earn a living to put food on the table. Having no way of making money isn’t sustainable.

The problem here is that this isn't putting food on the table for the people who actually built the software. It's a company surprising everyone by pocketing the money from other people's hard, unpaid work.

The license change is only for future versions, though. The work already put in remains open source.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#350

Post by ufocia »

ricardobeat wrote: post #312
mythz wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS are the largest leeches of OSS, syphoning off most the profits and contribute relatively nothing back towards the OSS projects they rent seek from. The "Free for all except mega cloud corps" license changes are to disrupt this status quo which currently sees the mega cloud corps with impenetrable moats from capturing most of the value of OSS products others spend their resources into building, AWS are then able t…

Except Redis was never meant to be “owned” by this company. They are both predatory.

It is not owned by the company. You are free to create your own fork of the code with all the attendant benefits, including monetization, if applicable.
Post reply on HN