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

451–460 of 520 posts

Re: The race to replace Redis

#451

Post by cjbgkagh »

drewda wrote: post #406
evanharwin wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do wonder if Microsoft kicked this all off by telling Redis Ltd that they were willing to pay beforehand.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#452

Post by marsupialtail_2 »

The sincerest form of flattery is when AWS decides to come up with a big consortium to displace you with some open source.

Incidentally the most effectively way to stall a project according to the CIA is to have a huge guiding committee with clearly diverging interests.

Redis will win because it's focused on its users. It's competitors will lose. Like OpenSearch, like OpenCL etc.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#453

Post by stephenr »

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.

With Redis it isn't even a case of "grow a user/customer base based on the fact that your software is open source and then turn it proprietary"

It's "buy the naming rights to an already popular piece of open source software and try to make a quick buck"

Re: The race to replace Redis

#454

Post by osigurdson »

I wonder if there is a use case for an open source permissive license that also cannot be changed. Several companies have started off with MIT in infancy and then switch to something else later when successful to improve monetization.

I mean, I get it, everyone wants to become billionaire, but best to be honest about it up front.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#455

Post by pimsn3000 »

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

Please explain

Re: The race to replace Redis

#456

Post by edkvmn »

As many others pointed out before, Redis Labs did not create the project, they started to provide Redis as a hosted solution just like other cloud providers, and with time gained control.

Redis Labs is not the only contributors to the project, Tencent and AWS contribute as well.

For Redis Labs the open source license was a distribution channel which they benefited tremendously.

I'm not an AWS fanboy but they operate some hosted solution significantly better than the companies building the products, at least the core offerings, this is what happened with Elastic and MonogDB.

It is Redis Labs prerogative to change the license, but they can also build a product around Redis that will drive customers to them instead of AWS, an offering that will be hard to replicate.

IMHO making a business that is "reselling" server capacity that was bought from AWS and trying to make a profit, can come back and bite you.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#457

Post by BoorishBears »

wokwokwok wrote: post #432
BoorishBears wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one's asking you to play any games: I'll settle for reading before you comment. > Also you can just keep your data in postgres and use paradedb and stop having to deal with dramatically more expensive infrastructure and the JVM. That was the comment I replied to. If you thought OpenSource was pre-V1 public beta software I'm not sure why you're even opining on this.

> If you have any meaningful or compelling argument why any of those three things is not true by all means, I’d love to hear about it.

Feel free to read the other comments you ignored.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#458

Post by tayo42 »

tayo42 wrote: post #378
jzb wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author of the article here. There may be some scenarios where there's a company just tossing code over the wall under a FOSS license and people complain when it stops. This scenario is not that. The company now known as Redis did not invent Redis, it started as a company trying to make money hosting other peoples' work. After it finally hired the creator of Redis, it specifically promised not to do what it has just d…

What did that guy and tencent contribute to so much of recently?

to answer my own question, i didn't realize tencent had their own cloud offering with all the major software available a service, guess they/him just do general development and bug fixes.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#459

Post by jacurtis »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #451
drewda wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do wonder if Microsoft kicked this all off by telling Redis Ltd that they were willing to pay beforehand.

Yes, this seems likely since there is almost no way that an announcement from Microsoft would happen so quickly. There were months of back and forth of licensing meetings prior to this with Redis Labs and Microsoft.

Microsoft would never just announce something like this on a whim.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#460

Post by michaelcampbell »

west0n wrote: post #24

Neal Gompa opened a discussion on the Fedora development list, noting the license change and the need to remove Redis from Fedora. Gompa also raised the issue on openSUSE's Factory discussion list. After Docker was phased out, various distributions have adopted the compatible Podman as a replacement for Docker. It seems that a similar story is unfolding with Redis.

> need to remove Redis from Fedora

I don't get it; does the new license prohibit it from being distributed thus, or is this a philosophical "need"?

Post reply on HN