[yread]

Wow, I'm kind of surprised by the amount of snark ("eww it's 140k lines", "mini git tutorial", "patch file instead of pull request").

It seems it's so big because it contains the libuv. The instructions to compile on Windows don't seem trivial at all and if I cared enough to try this I would appreciate that they wrote it step-by-step.

The guys at MS just sat down and made it work while antirez was throwing out suggestions how to make it work with " the behavior of the window filesystem is so incredibly broken that well they should really fix it I guess"

Sorry for the rant I would just expect better from the community.

[antirez]

The patch provided does not handle persistence correctly (saving blocks), does not make tests passing. The "libuv" part was the trivial part, already solved by the community, see the unofficial win32/win64 port that fixed it natively, with less code.

So nice to see Microsoft contributing code to Redis, but this is not a production ready port and is practically equivalent to what we already had made by the community.

Also, what is the point on having a production quality Redis server on Windows? That it will slow down the Redis POSIX development if we merge the two projects, the WIN32 API is different, there is a lot of care needed to maintain a port, but what is the real gain? Even services based on Windows like Stack Overflow had no issues running their Linux boxes to use Redis.

I've the bad habit of doing the interest of the Redis community, so once I saw there was a reasonable port of Redis for win32 (that is, enough to code under Windows and test stuff, no production ready) I avoided additional efforts in this regard to provide more value in the "real" Redis, the one running where 99.99% of people need it to run well, under POSIX environments.

EDIT: I was not clear in this post about what I'll do. I'll not merge the patch, but I'll see with interest the creation of a "redis-win32" project that has a different repository, different issues page, and so forth, and is not officially supported by me. But I'll be happy to provide a page in the redis.io site about it, to link at the project, to collaborate with the developers, and so forth.

[skrebbel]

> Also, what is the point on having a production quality Redis server on Windows?

I (co-)run a small bootstrapped startup running on a Windows server. We're considering to use Redis as our primary (only) database. For us, the simple ability to run Redis and our main C# application on the same box, in the beginning, would be a big plus. It simply saves a server, and unifies our production environment to a single OS.

Of course, it's just something relevant in the very beginning, and probably only for the non-valley-super-funded kind of startups. But it's this kind of stuff that might make us change our minds about Redis; if we can avoid doing system administration on two different OS'es for the time being, plus avoid installing two servers per application instance, then that's really a big plus for us. It allows us more time for functionality and less time for all kinds of admin scripting and whatnot. Of course, you could reason that we should simply switch off Windows entirely, but we really like C# and Visual Studio and we're productive in it.

Also, it'd be great to be able to develop against a more "official" version of Redis then what we have now.

Note, I'm not at all telling you what to do. I'm just giving you an idea why maybe it is useful to consider supporting Windows, using my personal situation as an example. Not every startup chooses Ruby or Node. Not every developer prefers a Mac. For the same reason I also humbly doubt the 99.99% number you quote. I think if you'd move to support Windows better, that number would decrease because organisations and people who run on Windows will now often simply disregard Redis as an option.

Especially corporate environments (business IT for instance) are usually very heavily Windows-based. The same holds for nearly the entire "high tech" industry (software for machines, devices, factory lines - e.g. nearly any office-scale printer you can buy runs Windows, nearly all factory management (MES/SCADA) software is Windows-based, etc.). These are industries that could benefit a lot from the performance increases Redis could give them (by using it essentially in the same way as stackoverflow does). My bet is they'd often be reluctant to even consider it if it means training an entire sysadmin force for a new OS. And that's even disregarding the software vendors who (so oldschool) sell software installed by clients (f.ex. the factory line stuff). They want to make their software faster, they don't want to force their client to administrate an extra OS.

Once again: not telling you what to do, it's your call (and I'm thankful for Redis no matter what). I'm just saying: mind the big jolly POSIX filter bubble; there's a big, big world out there, and a lot of it is very much not POSIX.

[nitrogen]

...nearly any office-scale printer you can buy runs Windows...

I'm positive I've read about multi-function office copier/printers that run Linux, but none of my search queries on Google and DDG yielded anything useful. I just got a bunch of pages of people asking for drivers.

[skrebbel]

oh, i'm sure they exist. there's no reason why a printer can't run linux. It's just that when most high end printers got UIs (mid to late 90s), Windows was the only decent dependable, supplier-backed option available, really. And since then the software evolved and thus stayed Windows-specific.

Similar reasons for why most other industrial / high-end professional devices run Windows. Effectively, Microsoft has locked in an entire industry (and as long as their developer support keeps kicking ass, few in the industry mind this).

[18pfsmt]

Hmm. Most of the multifunction, networked printers I've had to deal with in small business offices run NetBSD. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen one that runs Windows. Of course, my experience is limited to only ~9 offices, but I just assumed they were all like that.

[beagle3]

First, to address your concern: You can just run your C# code on Linux, rather than Redis on Windows. Mono really is that good (unlike the Windows Posix subsystem, which -- had microsoft cared to maintain, would have been able to run Redis!), and cross platform requests go both ways. You'd also save money on server licenses.

I'm feeling like I need to get my karma downvoted today :)

I'm kind of amazed by responses from yourself and yread below.

You guys are paying Microsoft for the privilege of using their products. Microsoft is actively working to harm competitors such as Android, Linux, and (antirez's dev platform IIRC) OS/X every other day. It has actively worked to undermine the free software community (of which Redis is a product) for a long time, calling GPL "a cancer" (yes, I know redis is BSD), financing the frivolous SCO vs. Novell law suit, loading ISO committees against the Open Document Format, threatening VirtualDub with a patent lawsuit, and a hundred other similar things.

You are not paying antirez, but are getting an excellent product and service for free (the cost being taking 30 minutes of your time to run redis in vm! Really! Try! I set up Linux vms in linux for testing all the time).

And yet, when antirez says "meh, not interested, it goes against my focus", you call his response "bubble filtered" or (other posters) "immature".

An Upton Sinclair quote is extremely relevant here: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

edit: AviDemux -> VirtualDub (misremembered)

[skrebbel]

I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in the whole Linux vs Microsoft flamewar. It feels a bit last century, and, well, I doubt we'll be able to change each other's minds here.

Some small responses to some other points you made, though:

> And yet, when antirez says "meh, not interested, it goes against my focus", you call his response "bubble filtered"

Thanks for pulling me out of context. I also said, twice even, that it's his fair choice and I just wanted to give him a different point of view that maybe he's underexposed to. We're all in a filter bubble. Considering "you're bubble filtered" an insult feels a bit, well, naive to me.

> You guys are paying* Microsoft for the privilege of using their products. *

I'd pay for a Redis version on Windows.

> You can just run your C# code on Linux, rather than Redis on Windows. Mono really is that good.

I'd love to believe that, and in fact I'm absolutely baffled how non-sucky Mono really is given how little support it has gotten from both corporations (MS included) and the rest of the open source community ("yuck, Microsoft!"). It's really awesome, all the work they did there. However with the tech we're using (such as, for example, parts of .NET 4's Entity Framework), I doubt we'll be able to move to Mono soon.

[beagle3]

> I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in the whole Linux vs Microsoft flamewar.

Oh, how I wish it was a flamewar. You sir, are apparently willingly ignorant. I have listed many cases where Microsoft have actively harmed projects and community processes. Actions with documented, measurable economic harm. It does not become a flamewar just because you are not interested.

This is a business war. I consider the side you support (by virtue of paying them) unethical. If Microsoft "won" the war on free software earlier, e.g. SCO managed to discredit Linux to the point of no one using it, Redis would likely not have happened the way it did.

> I doubt we'll be able to change each other's minds here.

Agreed.

> Thanks for pulling me out of context.

I don't think I was pulling you out of context. The rest of your statement is basically "you're entitled to be bubble filtered". But his response was considerate, detailed, to the point, and certainly NOT ignoring the reality.

> "you're bubble filtered" an insult feels a bit, well, naive to me.

I understand it to mean "you're unaware because of the way you live your (professional) life". It isn't necessarily an insult, but it implies ignorance -- whereas antirez demonstrated the opposite. It's just out of line at that point of the discussion.

> I'd pay for a Redis version on Windows.

Make antirez an offer then, it might be worth his while if many people do that. If you don't have the cash (I'm running a startup myself, I know how that is), you can offer equity.

> However with the tech we're using (such as, for example, parts of .NET 4's Entity Framework), I doubt we'll be able to move to Mono soon.

Cool. Don't be surprised that your choice of platform and tools, e.g. the latest-and-greatest .NET 4 Entity Framework, limits your access to other tools, e.g. redis. Life is a tradeoff.

[skrebbel]

> You sir, are apparently willingly ignorant.

Hm yeah, it appears I am. I think you're actually right about that.

Have you come to this thread to bash anyone who "admits" to using Microsoft software? It feels like that to me.

I don't consider buying software from Microsoft to be "choosing a side", just like I don't consider buying Apple products to be choosing a side in the child labor wars, just like I don't consider buying a chocolate bar means I choose the side against slavery in Africa. If you're as hard-line as you demand, everybody becomes a hypocrite.

> Cool. Don't be surprised that your choice of platform and tools, e.g. the latest-and-greatest .NET 4 Entity Framework, limits your access to other tools, e.g. redis. Life is a tradeoff.

Completely true! Did I ever say anything to the contrary?

There's a big difference between "There are valid use cases for Redis on Windows" and "I demand that Antirez port Redis to Windows, now, for free". I really only made the former point, but I have the feeling that you're passionately ranting against the latter.

[yread]

I'm coming from a very similar position (corun small bootstrapped startup running on windows server, outside the valley). In fact, my position is even worse, I want my software to run on my customer's servers. That's why the attitude shocked me.

Anyway, antirez wrote a blog post explaining his position in a level-headed and reasonable tone: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3333298

And it is indeed his call what to do with the patch. It is just a bit sad that there is this MS divide

[beagle3]

Read my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3334150 (and downvote it :) if we can infer anything from the downvote statistics in this thread)

> That's why the attitude shocked me.

Is your customer paying you? (I assume yes) Are you paying Antirez? (I assume no) Why is that attitude shocking you? You are paying Microsoft, and the only reason they want Redis to run on windows is so that you'll keep paying them. Not some grand "Oh redis is nice, we really want to support it".

> It is just a bit sad that there is this MS divide

And Microsoft is entirely to blame for it.

And cut the "Microsoft is a big company, don't treat it homogenously" bullsh@t. Barack Obama can't deport a us citizen he doesn't like (or at least couldn't until last week). Steve Ballmer can (and does) fire MS employees that are not aligned with his vision. There might be the occasional local initiatives that look nice -- but Microsoft is an enemy of free software.

[Legion]

I think patch versus pull request is a valid complaint, but there's absolutely no reason to be snarky about it.

Everything else just reeks of MS bashing that reinforces the negative view of the open source crowd that many on the MS side of the divide have.

Github is looking to pull the Windows crowd into their world; on the blog, they stated that as an explicit goal for their hiring of Phil Haack.

So, please, play nice. I would much rather Github stay a fairly harmonious place than be another open source vs. MS battleground.

[jf]

> So, please, play nice.

Working on it. Microsoft is a big company.

[burgerbrain]

The complaint about the size is most certainly not just "MS bashing". Dumping massive flawed pieces of code on people out of the blue and expecting them to be grateful is bad form, no matter who you are.

Unfortunately this seems to be Microsoft's MO.

[Gigablah]

How are the MS people who submitted the patch "expecting" others to be "grateful"?

[burgerbrain]

Perhaps they are not, but the people complaining about "snark" are what I am talking about.

Anyway, my point is that complaints about the size are very valid.

[moe]

no reason to be snarky

Really?

Until very recently Microsoft did actively fight the OSS movement with claws and teeth. Now they suddenly embrace us and we're not even allowed to be snarky?

Sentiments aside; as Antirez points out, supporting a win32-port would be a ball on a chain. If Microsoft really suddenly wants to be friends then they should step up and maintain a fork on their own budget instead of throwing a half-baked patch on the floor and expecting someone else to gift ongoing support to a for-profit company.

Otherwise, in my very personal opinion, they can just go to hell.

[nitrogen]

I would have upvoted this post, but for the last line. Much of Microsoft's past (and indeed some of its present) is tarnished with unfair competition through secret agreements, patents, etc., but there's probably a better way to express the resentment that has caused.

[to3m]

I couldn't be bothered with writing a rant, so I'm glad somebody put the effort in. You're right... it's a bit off. Just a chance for people to feel superior over the Windoze lusers, I guess :)

I trust that the people behind the patch have got from it what they want, and that if the patch is just sent straight to the recycle bin then it will be no skin off their collective noses.

[manojlds]

I mentioned the mini git tutorial

I am a MS fan and I use msysgit on Windows.

My point being, git now has good enough implementation on Windows and the team should have taken the time to learn it, as in this context, it doesn't look good that they are ignorant of git.

[blhack]

If anybody, like me, was curious what a "pull request" is[1]:

You fork the repo, submit a patch to that, then ask that the maintainer(s) of the original repo "pull" your code into theirs.

[1]http://help.github.com/send-pull-requests/