306
Redis is no longer OSS (fosstodon.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
112 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (12 children)

ElasticSearch tried this and lost hard already. OpenSearch has already out paced it in features and performance and ES is effectively dead. Such a braindead exercise to see Redis follow suit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Opensearch outpaced elasticsearch? This article from April 2023 states otherwise

    OpenSearch saw over 3 times less code commits on core, and 14 times less work on important modules

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I wouldn't touch ES with a barge pole. They wrote their own gravestone imo. Check out the quality of the docs today between the two, and the SQL support. commits != quality or features

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    The article goes more in depth about those points and ES comes out on top. OS is basically tailored to AWS, so outside of AWS it becomes less meaningful. But saying OS outpaced ES is a little disingenuous IMO

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Such a braindead exercise to see Redis follow suit

    I agree, this sounds like a desperate cash grab.

    I mean, cloud providers who are already using Redis will continue to do so without paying anything at all, as they're using stable versions of a software project already released under a permissive license. That ship has sailed.

    Major cloud providers can certainly afford developing their own services. If Amazon can afford S3 and DynamoDB, they can certainly develop from the ground up their own Redis-like memory cache. In fact, Microsoft already announced Garnet, which apparently outperforms Redis in no small way.

    So who exactly is expected to pay for this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Can someone explain the benefit of letting AWS use your product, then throw resources at it to improve it to get and advantage over your product, basically providing a much better product to their users than you would be able to. But they do it without any need to contribute back. I don't see the benefit of this to the opensource community at all, but people here seems to be quite passionate about it so you must see this differently than I do. So, please explain your view on how such a situation is beneficial to the OpenSource community.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    FOSS has spent the last few decades operating under the assumption that companies would give back for the greater good if they found value and grew dependent on a project. What they didn't understand is that corporations are parasites who only care about immediate profits, and are more than happy to abuse the honor system indefinitely. There isn't any benefit to FOSS to continue operating under this model, which is why FOSS is shifting away from licenses that permit leeching for profit.

    It's no different to how corporations have worked to destroy the social contract, and do everything imaginable to evade taxes, offshore labor, corrupt our political systems, and not give back to the economies that incubated them and enabled their success — at some point you have to tell them to get fucked, stop being a fucking parasite, and pay their fair share... If they don't give back and improve things for the majority, they don't deserve to profit from it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The idea behind making your software fully open source is that you don't care either way. And everyone is free to do as they please.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, that is not all the idea. You might have that idea, but it is not a basic idea at all. To keep something open (as in open source), you must put restrictions that prevents it from closing.

    A government is not more free just because it lacks any restrictions, about becoming a dictatorship. It is just less restricted at this point in time. To ensure a free society, there needs to be restrictions in place that ensures it stays free. The same applies to software.

    Many seems to believe that less restrictions means more free or open, that is not true. It is just less restricted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Oh no,sorry,that's sorry of what I meant: if you desire additional restrictions you'll need a license for that - as the redis devs are doing now, in fact.

    Which is fair. Quite fair. But if you do something less restrictive, you quite intentionally go the "dont care" route.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent