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

441–450 of 520 posts

Re: The race to replace Redis

#441

Post by nurple »

I'm disappointed that FOSS discussions like this always devolve into profit-focused arguments.

It's no wonder our "freedoms" in the software world have slowly but steadily been shifting to look exactly like our "freedoms" in the physical world: artificial scarcity apportioned by the few using their leverage over systems which put you in a steel cage if you don't play along.

And here we are, arguing with each other using the terms of those who seek to enslave us to their control. The fact that these billion and trillion dollar tech companies even exist is a testament to our failure.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#442

Post by wvh »

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.

This. Why not support the projects a company uses in ways that go beyond the traditional ways of hiring employees in the form of physical bodies that defy traffic jams to spend large parts of their day in a physical building? There are some larger companies that employ open-source or third-party developers of course, but it seems to me that if your product is built around a technology or framework, it would make sense to invest directly in that project – share a developer resource as it were – instead of hiring an extra person in-company and make sure your use case and reliance is covered in the future.

Both the internet and open-source enable alternative employment and funding models that up until now might have not have been sufficiently explored.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#443

Post by joshmanders »

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.

The problem is Drew is being really hostile towards the actual maintainers and core contributors of Redis who are looking to move on towards an actual open source fork.

He changed the license, moved the code, chosen the name and the direction all on his own without consulting anyone in the community.

His history had made me like that he forked it, but his actions and behavior towards the maintainers of Redis and absolute unwillingness to meet in the middle to collaborate really puts a hold on Redict being more than a fleeting thought.

Linux Foundation, core contributors to Redis and what seems to be the majority of the community is rallying around Valkey, so I don't see Redict going anywhere except in a niche subset of users.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#444

Post by Timber-6539 »

dralley wrote: post #440
Timber-6539 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Podman doesn't expose an interface for enabling kernel modules. The error message is intentionally intended to discourage users from doing administration on systems, just like the other similar messages you'll get about trying to use "privileged" ports ( Am sure you can get over the kernel module tun creation and other limitations by using something like --privileged but at that point, why not just use docker if you…

>Am sure you can get over the kernel module tun creation and other limitations by using something like --privileged but at that point, why not just use docker if you are going to run containers "insecurely". Because at least you can tell that it's insecure, rather than insecurity being the default?

Secure defaults and containers is kind of an oxymoron.

Also the "secure" defaults don't matter much if you have to manually jump through hoops in sysctl and modprobe to get things to work. Infact I could even argue that this introduces the risk of having an insecure server by misconfiguration.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#445

Post by mort96 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #418
mort96 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? If I contribute to a MIT-licensed project without a CLA, my contributions can't just be re-licensed to some proprietary license, can it? Wouldn't my contributions remain MIT, even if they re-license all other parts of the project to some proprietary license? Isn't the point of CLAs that you can re-license contributors' contributions?

MIT and BSD are so liberal that anyone can commercialize the work. All they have to do is attribute your parts to you, and not demand a warranty of you.

Why do corporate MIT-licensed projects have CLAs then?

(That's not meant a gotcha, I just don't really know how this stuff works)

Re: The race to replace Redis

#446

Post by blackoil »

Far more involved people are in this thread, but my 2c. Forking of software isn't a big issue, but of the community is. If new software was R++ which company will close and original Redis is now in hands of the community everyone would have been OK. The community is built organically and has contributed a lot over the years. Now, it will have to be built again where the efforts would be diluted in multiple forks till they gravitate toward one. Maybe AWS, Tencent, MS will back one and we'll have to settle on a version backed by corporates.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#447

Post by lenerdenator »

brody_hamer wrote: post #48

It wasn’t clear to me until I read their blog, that redis will remain free to use in their “community edition”, which will continue to be supported and maintained (and improved!) So we as developers don’t have to scramble to replace redis in our SAAS apps and web based software. This is more about preventing AWS from eating their lunch by providing redis-as-a-service, without paying any sort of compensation to the re…

The problem with this is, it's virtually impossible to compete against the FOSS trunk that your now-closed-source software branched off of, or FOSS clones of it. Low-end proprietary UNIXes got wiped out by GNU/Linux and the BSDs, for example.

Amazon, Google, MS, and all the rest easily have the talent and resources to create a Redis replacement with code that already exists. They'll do so because it is to their advantage to not charge for the license fees Redis now wants.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#448

Post by folkrav »

fweimer wrote: post #250
cpach wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NB: Docker Engine is open source. (Docker Desktop is not.)

Moby is open source. The licensing situation for Docker Engine is unclear.

https://docs.docker.com/engine/#licensing >The Docker Engine is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See LICENSE for the full license text.

The linked license file is moby's https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/LICENSE

Re: The race to replace Redis

#450

Post by hardwaresofton »

secondcoming wrote: post #343
hardwaresofton wrote: post #47

Somehow no one has mentioned KeyDB so: https://github.com/Snapchat/KeyDB [EDIT] whoops, didn't read the article, went immediately to comments for recommendations since that's what HN is good at IMO.

KeyDB is flaky garbage

Whoaaaa I’d love some details on this reaction, do you have any stories or anecdotes to share? I have to say I’ve never hit its limits so I’ve never lost trust in it
Post reply on HN