Hacker News Reader

Comment by CyanLite2 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

No, it’s built using the .NET stack most Linux users won’t touch with a 20-ft pole.

It’s a very unfortunate but classic myopic view of a hopefully smaller part of Linux community. Where-as .NET in reality is often easier to contribute to than a random project they are using with owner having ego issues.

It’s a stack they are looking for but keep missing right under their nose.

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 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.

No such confusion is going on. Most Linux people won't touch the Microsoft .NET stack with a 20 foot pole, whether it's called .NET Core or .NET Framework.

Can confirm. There is nothing Microsoft could possibly offer, except for maybe a ludicrous bribe, to convince me to walk into their ecosystem again.

Or Apple's Swift for that matter. Or Oracle's MySQL or Java. Or more recently Redis.

It has nothing to do with the technical merits of the technology, but with suspicions of the intentions of the company behind it and a desire not to create a dependency on them.

AvaloniaUI and Uno are pretty great! There is also new actively maintained fork of GtkSharp as well as many other bindings. Honestly, it's as good as it gets in many other alternatives which don't have the advantages of .NET.

It's an important disclaimer as someone might read this and go write another tool in Python + Tkinter (with terrible results).

Probably not, because it's new and incompatible with many Redis use cases (lua scripts, etc).

Most Redis users don't really do scripting though. If Microsoft manages to replace Redis for most use cases they will succeed.

Let's replace a project that failed because of a CLA with another project that requires a CLA

Garnet is MIT licensed.

See: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet

And requires a CLA, see the same link

I think the point BartjeD wants to make is that due to the nature of MIT licensing, they could run away with your contributions anyway, even without a CLA. Furthermore, Redis didn't have a CLA if I remember correctly and the relicensing is solely based on the what the previously used BSD license allows.

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)

CLAs in those cases may be more to cover their ass in case of disputes about authorship, the future of the project, or in case they forget attribution.

Interesting, I thought the point of not wanting CLAs was not giving them the ability to relicense your code under a more restrictive license (i.e. SSPL), not to keep them from running away with it.

Article does mention it

To not support the FLUSHALL command suggests that Azure is the goal with the project.

Why?

It should be a simple task to add that command and it is widely used. It sounds more like a business decision to not add it. It is not unusual that cloud providers make it difficult to delete data for various reasons.

As it currently stands, it is as difficult to get data onto Azure - you're supposed to manually deploy a container yourself to whichever cloud provider you are using, there is no "Managed Garnet" solution yet (but given hype it will probably arrive at some point).

Either way you can see contributions to add more commands here: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet/pulls?q=is%3Apr+add+comm...

With that said, I'm slightly skeptical of/worried about Garnet but the reason is different - it received a bit too much hype soon after going public and I'm concerned it will be subject to corporate politics that often plague projects like that.

I was of course talking about a managed service. And the problem with deleting data exists in several Azure producs like Cosmos DB, Table storage, App Insights and so on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com