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

401–410 of 520 posts

Re: The race to replace Redis

#401

Post by ufocia »

mort96 wrote: post #389
pjmlp wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it is incredible how the whole free software movement turned into a bunch of entitled folks that want to be paid for their work, while refusing to put down any penny for the folks that make their tooling possible in first place. At the same time big corps use it as carte blanche to basically pirate software in a legal way, while following the letter of the licence. Going back to the open core/demo versions (aka…

I for one don't like it when companies do a bait-and-switch. It's fine to develop proprietary software, the problem is when you grow a user/customer base based on the fact that your software is open source and then turn it proprietary.

Trust no one. Be self sufficient.

I, for one, will take the risk, reap the benefits and move on when factors are no longer conducive to my goals.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#402

Post by neonsunset »

AtNightWeCode wrote: post #381
neonsunset wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

It should be a simple task to add that command and it is widely used. It sounds more like a business decision to not add it. It is not unusual that cloud providers make it difficult to delete data for various reasons.

As it currently stands, it is as difficult to get data onto Azure - you're supposed to manually deploy a container yourself to whichever cloud provider you are using, there is no "Managed Garnet" solution yet (but given hype it will probably arrive at some point).

Either way you can see contributions to add more commands here: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet/pulls?q=is%3Apr+add+comm...

With that said, I'm slightly skeptical of/worried about Garnet but the reason is different - it received a bit too much hype soon after going public and I'm concerned it will be subject to corporate politics that often plague projects like that.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#403

Post by ufocia »

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #336
pjmlp wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter, they are the rigthfull owners of Redis and the author has freely given ownership to them, and has been paid for. Supermarket bills cannot be paid with pull requests.

Supermarket bills don't get paid by broken business models either. If Redis Inc never existed, Redis the software wouldn't be much worse for it. I'm starting to wonder who the entitled is in the first place.

It's only broken when they go out of business. Just because you don't like the business model, doesn't mean it's broken.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#404

Post by bogwog »

noirscape wrote: post #236
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 distr…

Yeah I don't think Docker is the type of tool the typical engineer cares enough about to go out of their way to learn something new, no matter how much better or simpler it may be. I guess it's like git; even though most devs only have a surface level knowledge, dethroning it would require convincing people to learn a new system, and that's not gonna happen no matter how good it is.

Red Hat at least had the muscle to force podman onto some people, but not everyone.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#405

Post by ufocia »

stephenr wrote: post #376
pjmlp wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter, they are the rigthfull owners of Redis and the author has freely given ownership to them, and has been paid for. Supermarket bills cannot be paid with pull requests.

> Supermarket bills cannot be paid with pull requests. Nor with increasingly unnecessary and niche features aimed at "enterprise" customers, it seems. One could probably even argue that buying the rights to the name of a popular permissively licensed project is a terrible way to pay said bills.

One can argue a lot of things, and that's what we're doing here.

How is it terrible?

Re: The race to replace Redis

#406

Post by drewda »

evanharwin wrote: post #272
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.

This makes me think - is it actually bad for Amazon/Google/Microsoft, that they now have to pay a licensing fee to Redis? I feel like there’s an argument that these kind of licensing terms are almost beneficial to ‘big cloud’ because the cost/effort of all of these arrangements might dissuade smaller companies from trying to compete in the hosting and managed-services business.

Microsoft announced on the same day as the Redis license change that Azure's managed Redis offering will continue to run against the latest releases: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/redis-license-update-...

Meaning that Microsoft is "paying to play" with Redis Ltd... while I have not seen any announcements from AWS or GCP.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#408

Post by stephenr »

ufocia wrote: post #405
stephenr wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Supermarket bills cannot be paid with pull requests. Nor with increasingly unnecessary and niche features aimed at "enterprise" customers, it seems. One could probably even argue that buying the rights to the name of a popular permissively licensed project is a terrible way to pay said bills.

One can argue a lot of things, and that's what we're doing here. How is it terrible?

It's apparently terrible because it didn't work.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#409

Post by bogwog »

mort96 wrote: post #390
YoshiRulz wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be confusing .NET (formerly .NET Core) with .NET Framework. Which is forgivable, because MS is terrible at naming things. The former stack is a joy to work with since some QoL changes a few years ago—as long as you don't need both a GUI framework and Linux support, in which case you're pretty screwed. (Our app is still on .NET Framework for that reason.) I don't know if you were referring to the total instal…

No such confusion is going on. Most Linux people won't touch the Microsoft .NET stack with a 20 foot pole, whether it's called .NET Core or .NET Framework.

Can confirm. There is nothing Microsoft could possibly offer, except for maybe a ludicrous bribe, to convince me to walk into their ecosystem again.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#410

Post by mondomondo »

radicalbyte wrote: post #233
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good products == low valuations it would have stunned the investors if they focused of quality instead of marketing.
Post reply on HN