381–390 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To not support the FLUSHALL command suggests that Azure is the goal with the project.
Why?
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.
I don't know if you were referring to the total install size of apps or to the licence or maybe just how annoying Mono was, but nowadays you can compile down to one binary, optionally with the runtime included. That makes it simpler for Linux sysadmins than Java or even Python, IMO.
All this outcry about license switch coming from "community" feels funny. After all, if there is the "community" then they can take the last open-source version and keep developing it themselves, right? But most "communities" are about "take, take, take", not "work, work, work". They often upset only because someone declared they aren't going to work for free any more.
In this case the community is the biggest contributor to Redis. The ones that "take, take, take" is Redis the company. Your comment seems way out of place in this light.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is not inherently surprising. Developers need a salary to pay the bills. Let's say that covers the first 40 hours of the week. Those who are searching for significance outside their day job offer free labor as their "hobby". Maybe 10 hours a week? For projects that want to move forward with some velocity it makes sense to make some of that development into paid day-jobs. As projects get very large, there's a fa…
Those turtles didn't need to use funding pre-doc-com-boom, they were passion projects and people with time devoted to the "cause" of FOSS. > This is the cognitive dissonance that underpins OSS development. The very people OSS treat as the "enemy" are the people funding OSS in the first place. As much as say RMS rails against big tech, Linux and the rich Linux economy system only exist at the level they do -because- o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their definition of "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms" seems... incredibly vague, and with a big chicken-and-egg problem for the first license. > If the licensor advertises license terms and a pricing structure for generally available commercial licenses, the licensor proposes license terms and a price as advertised, and a customer not affiliated with the licensor has bought a commercial license for the…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Precisely. Licenses are working as expected. People that spin this as “stealing” are simply showing their own lack of understanding.
I think everybody here understand that you legally can fork bsd code under a new license. I think you and them differ in what you think is morally correct to do for an open source maintainer in the specific context of the redis project. (I don’t know enough to be in either camp.)
When authors pick a license, it's a serious act. It's not a joke like hey I pick BSD but mind you, I don't really want you to follow the terms! Make sure to don't fork or change license. LOL. A couple of years ago somebody forked Redis and then sold it during some kind of acquisition. The license makes it possible, and nobody complained. Now Redis Inc. changes license, and other parties fork the code to develop it in a different context. Both things are OK with the license, so both things can be done.
A different thing is what one believes to be correct or not for the future of some software. That is, if I was still in charge, would I change license? But that's an impossible game to play, I'm away from the company for four years and I'm not facing the current issues with AWS impossible-to-compete-with scenario. I don't know and I don't care, it does not make sense to do such guesswork. What I know for sure is that licensing is a spectrum. I release code under the MIT or BSD, but that's just me. I understand other choices as well. What I don't understand is making the future of open source in the hands of what OSI says it's correct and wrong. Read the terms of the license, and understand if you are fine with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is too many people are announcing OSS forks so it’s hard to align development efforts and users are confused. No one’s begging Redis Labs (which didn’t create Redis in the first place and only took over the brand with VC money when it was already popular) or whatever they’re called now to keep the bug fixes rolling. They only account for 20-50% of recent development anyway (50% if you attribute all “unkno…
What you’re describing isn’t a problem. Why does it matter if there are too many forks? Development also doesn’t need to be aligned to begin with. It’s like complaining that there are too many implementations on GitHub of the same thing.
You're spot on. People are bellyaching that the world doesn't operate according to their arbitrary rules.
Perhaps I'd be happier in a geocentric universe, but it doesn't make a non-geocentric universe bad per se.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether it's gratis or not isn't the issue. Some people used Redis not only because it's free of cost, but also because it's open source. It's not anymore.
It is open source up until Redis 7.4. Why does it matter to you (someone that cares about it being open source) if future versions created by this specific company are not? You (or someone else) can fork it and continue the work in an open manner. AFAIAC that is the literal purpose of open source.
All this outcry about license switch coming from "community" feels funny. After all, if there is the "community" then they can take the last open-source version and keep developing it themselves, right? But most "communities" are about "take, take, take", not "work, work, work". They often upset only because someone declared they aren't going to work for free any more.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s built using the .NET stack most Linux users won’t touch with a 20-ft pole.
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…