

Redis on Windows prototype - yread
https://github.com/MSOpenTech/Redis

======
kogir
I'd be much more impressed if they just spent some time on their POSIX layer
(which exists and is close to tolerable), so that arbitrary projects would
compile. Why massively hack one project when you can make multiple work?

~~~
CurtHagenlocher
For a fairly large number of reasons, actually. Lets say you wanted to start
the work now. The POSIX layer is probably owned by the OS division. They're
pretty busy finishing up Windows 8. New versions of this layer would almost
certainly require a new version of Windows, and as it would be too late to get
into Windows 8, the earliest it would ship would be in the following release
of Windows. Additionally, the OS team probably doesn't have much of an
incentive to improve the POSIX layer, whereas whichever organization is
funding this project is likely to have goals which align much more closely
with the work being done.

People sometimes seem to think that Steve Ballmer is Steve Jobs: micromanaging
these kinds of decisions from the top. Instead, they're often made fairly far
down in the org chart

~~~
kogir
You're completely right.

I also feel bad. I accidentally did one of the things I hate, off-topic
comment on actually cool project, and would delete my post now if I could.

I commend everyone who worked on this for pulling it off - it can't have been
easy. And if it allows them to offer redis on Azure, that's awesome, as long
as it keeps current with redis proper.

It doesn't matter at all for consumers really, but in the server space I think
the inability to run great open source applications is a bigger issue than
even licensing cost. I hope, likely in vain, that they'll address this at some
point in the future.

------
ses4j
The comments here seem brutally negative, but I applaud Microsoft for yet
another step in what seems to me to be a firm-wide aggressive embrace of open
source tech. The Microsoft of yore would not have built this at all, let alone
released this on Github.

~~~
dexen
_> The comments here seem brutally negative,(...) firm-wide aggressive embrace
of open source tech._

Some of us still remember how Microsoft used to Extend and Extinguish right
after Embracing. Protocols, formats, standards; you name it, they did it. It
is true the company seems changing to better, but you can't re-build damaged
reputation overnight.

For example, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3900348>

_> The comments here seem brutally negative (...)_

Those aren't _that_ brutal yet. Read up some discussion on software patents.
Or on PHP ;-)

------
peterb
This is inline with their work to get hadoop, Linux etc. They are not adding
any new featues. They are simply porting to their proprietary operating
system.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Supporting a major new operating system is not a new feature for any software?

------
yread
see also
[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2012/04/26/...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2012/04/26/here-
s-to-the-first-release-from-ms-open-tech-redis-on-windows.aspx) for more
details and reference to dmajkic project. The main difference here seems to be
they managed to do the asynchronous persistence without a fork. They also
mention in the comments that they are planning to release it for Azure.

------
beagle3
Previous HN discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3333298>

------
mattsidesinger
I was using this, <https://github.com/dmajkic/redis>, previously.

------
herf
can someone post a pointer to the diffs?

~~~
thibaut_barrere
Here's something to get started:

[https://github.com/MSOpenTech/redis/compare/antirez:2.4.11.....](https://github.com/MSOpenTech/redis/compare/antirez:2.4.11...MSOpenTech:2.4)

------
elliotlai
@antirez said: sorry, NO THANKS!!

~~~
antirez
No I did not ;) What I think is:

1) It's cool to see Redis ported on win32, especially now that they are trying
to provide an implementation that can persist asynchronously and so forth.

2) Not interested in backporting changes into the main Redis codebase at the
moment, because there are little reasons to deploy on WIN32 IMHO, and the
changes to the code base are massive.

So it's interesting, it's listed in the "download" page of hte official site
as an external project, but there are no solid reasons to make the official
code base more complex.

~~~
huggyface
_because there are little reasons to deploy on WIN32 IMHO_

There are plenty of reasons to deploy on Windows, and it has lost Redis a lot
of momentum and wins that it doesn't support it.

~~~
skrebbel
We've had this discussion a while ago. The outcome is that it's antirez's
call. There's plenty of us who'd like him to take out a few months to drop new
features and do windows portability instead, but it's his call. If antirez
would always take the easy way after some user space resistance, he'd be a
mysql contributor.

~~~
huggyface
_The outcome is that it's antirez's call._

Absolutely true. He owes me or anyone else nothing. I am not saying that he
should do it, I'm just replying to the specific statement about deploying on
Windows. There are plenty of reasons someone might prefer to deploy on
Windows, which explains why almost all successful technologies have first-
class windows options (Mongodb, PHP, Ruby, Apache, MySQL, postresql, Membase,
and on and on and on).

------
nateberkopec
Next week from the Cool Stuff ported to Lame Platforms department: Node.js on
OS/2

