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

From where I left

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 472 posts

Re: From where I left

#411

Post by datadeft »

I am not sure what is going on with k:v stores and I do not understand how to hell we ended up with Redis. Using Redis in production for some time I am not impressed.

Redis does not natively scale across multiple cores in a traditional multi-threaded sense, you can still scale it horizontally (across multiple machines or instances).

This horizontal scaling is also problematic. Some of the cloud solutions we used would die during a scaling event.

I went on the hunt to find an alternative but not sure what to replace it with. At this stage the interface has to be Redis compatible because devs really like it.

I found this so far: https://medium.com/@shafreeck/titan-a-distributed-redis-prot...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: From where I left

#412

Post by adolph »

jenadine wrote: post #314
benatkin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redis from Redis Labs, available under a choice of its own license or the SSPL, is pretty close to truly open-source , IMO closer to it than the BUSL, which is another source-available license. It is pretty similar to the AGPLv3, and they even credibly applied to get it OSI-approved. https://blog.tidelift.com/what-i-learned-from-the-server-sid... https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11291/how-to-... What it…

If the new license is so similar to the AGPL, why did they not pick AGPL as one of the license options in order to keep a well known OSI-aproved license?

Yes, picking the same license is at least some security against a backdoor of some crafty IP lawyer.

Re: From where I left

#413

Post by evanelias »

jchw wrote: post #295
stephenr wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH oracle have been better stewards of MySQL since they bought Sun than Redis the company has been of Redis for the last five or so years.

I personally have wondered if Oracle's behavior with MySQL is partly motivated by the fact that if they try to rug-pull it will most likely just push all of the cloud providers over to MariaDB anyways, which has been doing just fine, and I think is already supported by Amazon RDS anyways. Ultimately I am totally fine with a fork-heavy ecosystem, the only thing I would erase if I could is the normalization of signing…

MySQL and MariaDB have diverged over the years. They each have some interesting major features that the other one lacks, and there's an ever-growing list of incompatibilities between them.

Amazon RDS does offer a MariaDB option, but Amazon Aurora does not. And other clouds often don't offer it. As far as I can tell from a quick search, Google CloudSQL does not offer a managed MariaDB product. Azure offers one, but they're officially retiring it next year.

This discussion is also a bit ironic because MariaDB created the BSL (for use in their proxy product), which is typically attacked alongside SSPL in these types of threads.

Not taking sides here, to be clear. I use both MySQL and MariaDB and am glad they both exist. And personally I have no problems with BSL (or SSPL etc) software, since I am not a cloud hosting provider.

Re: From where I left

#414

Post by jillyboel »

evanelias wrote: post #410
jillyboel wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is though. Do you not see any value in bug fixes? Do you think software never needs to be updated? We all know security updates are crucial, and pretending you can just run the old version forever is insane. If I contributed to redis in the past I did so under the assumption that I was contributing to a product that I could actually keep using. But instead they took all those contributions and gave the…

> If I contributed to redis in the past I did so under the assumption that I was contributing to a product that I could actually keep using It sounds like you also have an assumption that the maintainers will spend the effort to maintain your contribution forever , after already spending the initial effort to review and integrate your contribution. This all takes time and money, which has to come from somewhere. You'…

> It sounds like you also have an assumption that the maintainers will spend the effort to maintain your contribution forever, after already spending the initial effort to review and integrate your contribution. This all takes time and money, which has to come from somewhere.

Correct, that's generally how open source works. You make a contribution, they merge it, and then the assumption is that it is maintained by the maintainers. You seem to act like this is an odd assumption, even though it is and has been the reality for pretty much every open source project ever.

> But the same exact issue exists from the maintainers' point of view.

Right, it's their "job". Maintaining the software. It's pretty much in the name. That's what happens when you accept contributions. They get merged into the software project, and then you (the maintainer) are responsible for maintaining it, or removing the functionality in a subsequent release. That's why code review happens where you consider the maintenance burden, and features sometimes don't get merged.

If this doesn't sound appealing then don't become the maintainer of an open source project.

> Many third party contributors are writing their contributions as part of their day job (meaning they're paid to do it), and the contribution directly benefits themselves and/or their employer by fixing some problem they encountered or adding some feature that they needed.

Sure, and they could've kept it private so it only benefits them and/or their employer. But instead they chose to open source it in the hopes that

1) The maintainers will maintain it

2) It might benefit someone else

That's the whole deal. You're essentially trading your contributions for future maintenance.

Re: From where I left

#415

Post by jillyboel »

evanelias wrote: post #406
jillyboel wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so just because something is in the past it's become irrelevant? So no promises are ever worth trusting? The creator of redis LITERALLY said "Redis will remain BSD licensed". And it's no longer BSD licensed.

Where is there a "promise" in that post? Where is there any wording about it remaining BSD forever ? It's a post from 2018, about a specific license confusion situation that occurred in 2018. Context matters.

In the title: "Redis will remain BSD licensed"

You can try to be a smartass and add random caveats but that's not how language works.

Imagine if everyone thought like you did: "Sure I promise to do X" (not saying that I mean for the next 5 minutes and will then ignore my past promise)

Re: From where I left

#416

Post by jchw »

stephenr wrote: post #303
jchw wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally have wondered if Oracle's behavior with MySQL is partly motivated by the fact that if they try to rug-pull it will most likely just push all of the cloud providers over to MariaDB anyways, which has been doing just fine, and I think is already supported by Amazon RDS anyways. Ultimately I am totally fine with a fork-heavy ecosystem, the only thing I would erase if I could is the normalization of signing…

MariaDB is one of the biggest ironies to me: it was started because people claimed Oracle was going to do Oracle things with it, and somehow make it not open any more. What actually happened is: - Oracle has just made MySQL better, and continues to release new tooling (e.g. mysql router) for it under the same license (gpl2). - MariaDB releases the bare minimum database engine under the GPL, and uses closed licenses f…

I wouldn't really put too much weight into the marketing speak, MariaDB feels like the same MySQL offering that always existed, at least to me (and I do run it in production, albeit only on a small scale.) And MariaDB has done plenty of work that is available in the open source product: performance improvements, new storage engines and so on. The only thing that's surprising is that MySQL continued to do the same.

I don't think what MariaDB is doing today is what everyone was really worried about Oracle doing. Rather, Oracle simply never did what everyone thought they would. Personally, I think MariaDB keeps them honest, and if MariaDB ceased to exist as a serious alternative there is a good chance the lawnmower would fire back up.

Though who knows. Maybe Oracle is different. However, I would prefer not to waste the openness of my mind. I reckon if they thought they could pull the rug they would do so.

Re: From where I left

#417

Post by antirez »

reconditerose wrote: post #114
PieUser wrote: post #9

Will be interesting to see how the Valkey community reacts to this

Valkey maintainer here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I worked with antirez a bit before he left the project in 2020, and I still look fondly back on that time since he was a wonderful person and he helped me learn a lot. I wish he had considered coming to work with Valkey instead of Redis, but maybe we'll find some some way to work together that benefits both communities.

Appreciate your kind words, and I'm very happy it was a good experience to work together, it was cool for me too. I hope there will be ways to exchange infos and hack :)

Re: From where I left

#418

Post by alecco »

thanksgiving wrote: post #381
alecco wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note his "build a business on it" angle. It's not an open source problem. Greedy techbros want free support forever from the community while contributing almost nothing back. Same for large corporations. They see this as "rug pulling". I think developers need to do a lot more of that for things to change.

OP wrote > The license language is almost the same as the AGPL, with changes regarding the SAAS stuff. So, not OSI approved? Yes, but I have issues calling the SSPL a closed license. What is it that changed from AGPL in SSPL that was absolutely needed? Why can't we have an AGPL 1.1 or 2.0 if it is a breaking change? I am not saying anyirez is wrong. I would like to learn why this was necessary, if at all.

> What is it that changed from AGPL in SSPL that was absolutely needed?

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/8028

Big cloud players would put a thin layer on top and ignore the AGPL.

Re: From where I left

#419

Post by evanelias »

jillyboel wrote: post #414
evanelias wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I contributed to redis in the past I did so under the assumption that I was contributing to a product that I could actually keep using It sounds like you also have an assumption that the maintainers will spend the effort to maintain your contribution forever , after already spending the initial effort to review and integrate your contribution. This all takes time and money, which has to come from somewhere. You'…

> It sounds like you also have an assumption that the maintainers will spend the effort to maintain your contribution forever, after already spending the initial effort to review and integrate your contribution. This all takes time and money, which has to come from somewhere. Correct, that's generally how open source works. You make a contribution, they merge it, and then the assumption is that it is maintained by th…

I'm well acquainted with open source maintenance; one of my open source projects has been downloaded over 2 million times, and another is imported by over 8000 other repos on GitHub. I'm not "acting like this is an odd assumption" but rather my point was to consider the economic side from the maintainers' point of view, which many people in this thread are completely ignoring.

As you said above, maintainers don't have to accept your contribution, and if they do, they always have the option of removing it in a future release. And if the maintainers use a CLA or other copyright assignment mechanism, they also have the option of changing the license for future releases. So why are you assuming you can keep using future versions of the product forever if you contribute to it and sign a CLA?

> Sure, and they could've kept it private so it only benefits them and/or their employer

But that doesn't actually provide a net "benefit" to the contributor, because then they have to take on the massive burden of maintaining a private fork.

My point in all this is that contributing to open source often benefits the contributor more than the maintainer, and yet people act like it primarily is an altruistic gift from the contributor which solely benefits the maintainer / product owner.

Re: From where I left

#420

Post by evanelias »

jillyboel wrote: post #415
evanelias wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is there a "promise" in that post? Where is there any wording about it remaining BSD forever ? It's a post from 2018, about a specific license confusion situation that occurred in 2018. Context matters.

In the title: "Redis will remain BSD licensed" You can try to be a smartass and add random caveats but that's not how language works. Imagine if everyone thought like you did: "Sure I promise to do X" (not saying that I mean for the next 5 minutes and will then ignore my past promise)

Again, where is the word "promise" in this post?

The post title in its original context is clearly referring to the confusion discussed in the very first sentence: "Today a page about the new Common Clause license in the Redis Labs web site was interpreted as if Redis itself switched license." The title is saying that Redis core's license was not switched to Common Clause at that time in 2018. That's all. It is not titled "I promise that Redis will remain open source forever".

Post reply on HN