[mythz]

The snark on this thread is concerning, Microsoft has made a good gesture in trying improve the Redis story on Windows and IMO it's something we all should be encouraging as it can only serve to improve the Redis ecosystem.

Historically Microsoft hasn't been too fond of NoSQL but positive steps like this validates Redis in the eyes of Windows devs which has the potential to attract new devs to the world of Redis and NoSQL.

I personally hope to see this implementation improve so it runs flawlessly on Windows and Azure.

[beagle3]

> Microsoft has made a good gesture

When on the other hand they are poisoning the Android/Linux ecosystem with FUD, patent extortion and the like. While I would prefer the discussion to stay civil and technical, Microsoft is consistently earning every snark they are receiving, and then some.

[chimeracoder]

They might be doing other things you don't like, but at least give credit where credit is due.

Submitting code upstream to Redis is completely independent of their patent decisions regarding Android. I'm not a fan of their overall stance with respect to FOSS/Linux/Android, and they may be earning the snark there, but not in this case.

These discussions become a lot more valuable when we stop characterizing any organization, especially one as complex as a large corporation, as universally 'good' or 'bad'.

[rbanffy]

> give credit where credit is due

Sure. Just don't forget they profit from Windows sales and, thus, will do anything to justify the deployment of a Windows server instead of a Linux one. Including contributing to a Unix-native product. If, in the end, Redis' codebase becomes cluttered and performance and maintenance suffer, we all lose. I mean, all of us except Microsoft, who wins both by us losing and from gaining space for their own future offerings in this segment.

There is no good or bad. It's self interest. When their self-interest coincides with the society's, I'm for them. OTOH, it's been a long time since it last did. It certainly never happened after the mid 90's.

[mythz]

Of course they're selfishly motivated - everyone is. The point is this time Redis/NoSQL stands to benefit as well.

[d0mine]

It seems you've skipped the sentence:

If, in the end, Redis' codebase becomes cluttered and performance and maintenance suffer, we all lose. </quote>

[mythz]

That's a case for not merging, not for a parallel win32-based project - which this implementation could serve either of.

[beagle3]

> These discussions become a lot more valuable when we stop characterizing any organization, especially one as complex as a large corporation, as universally 'good' or 'bad'.

That is true. But it is also foolish to ignore over 20 years of Microsoft's strategy, the mostly successful "embrace, extend and extinguish".

This patch is purely out of self interest: people might install a unix server if they want Redis and can't have it on Windows. There is no "good will" (and no "bad will").

If it harms performance on linux? Well, they are likely not to care at this point, or at least one second after the patch is accepted.

Microsoft has a history of co-operating with the rest of the world only when they are at a disadvantage, and ignoring standards and conventions when they have the advantage.

Excuse me if I'm not enthusiastic about a patch they send to a project I like.

[beagle3]

Missed this first time I commented:

> Submitting code upstream to Redis is completely independent of their patent decisions regarding Android. I'm not a fan of their overall stance with respect to FOSS/Linux/Android, and they may be earning the snark there, but not in this case.

Wrong. They are both cleared by the same legal department, guided by the same company vision. They are not being a useful member of the community. They're trying to give people less reason to leave Windows. Pure self interest, completely in line with everything else they do.

[Ecio78]

I dont want to defend Microsoft, but i think that if we dig deep enough we found bad "habits" in every big society: what about Google[1] or Apple suing everybody from Samsung [2] to Luxembourgish restourants[3]?

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la... [2] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-08-02/apple-lawsuit-pu... [3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3190944

[Joakal]

Microsoft has a history of screwing over with their 'help': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

I believe he's referring to this with scaring people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Mi...

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

[nknight]

[1] is a link to a story about Google being sued by Skyhook, not Google suing anybody.

[kenjackson]

Yes, but look at why Skyhook is suing them. We live in a weird bubble where if a company gets sued then they are the victim. No one even fathoms, when it comes to Google at least, that maybe they did something to deserve being sued.

[nknight]

He didn't say "Google is being mean", he said they and Apple were "suing everybody", a statement in no way supported by one of his references.

[Ecio78]

sorry for my bad english, it led you to misinterpretations: I was citing situations in which other big names (not microsoft) were a bit "evil", google too (because the op was picturing a scenary in which Microsoft is all-bad with its FUD and google/android is just a victim)

I should have written "what about Google, intimidating its own partners in order to shut down competitors like skyhook, or Apple, suing dozens of society, from competitors to restaurants"

[shinratdr]

They were being sued by Skyhook because they were using Android compatibility tests "as a club to get OEMs to do what [they] want" (their words). In this case, they were using it to push out Skyhook in favour of Google Location Services.

[test2754]

Apple is the worst.

- They don't allow to run your own programs on your own computer. Can you imagine Windows blocking Firefox? Microsoft was about to be disintegrated just for making a web browser, yet Apple can fully block competing programs.

- They are very expensive, so the great majority of world population can't use software made for Apple systems.

[jroseattle]

Don't confuse Microsoft's teams with the flatulating buttheads in the executive office. Most of the people working there now weren't around when MS was a dominant company.

[beagle3]

1) MS is still a dominant company

2) The people working there are _taking orders_ from the executive office. You can be completely sure, especially in Microsoft, that this was cleared with the executive and legal time before anything was uploaded (not doing so is grounds for termination), and you can be quite sure that even if this is an "grass-root" initiative inside microsoft, it was discussed and authorized with management before the 3rd hour was spent.

More likely, someone in sales asked a customer "Why are you using Linux here instead of Windows?" and the response was "We need Redis" - prompting this work.

[jroseattle]

1) No they aren't. 2) Management was likely briefed, and someone indeed authorized it. However, if you believe this went all the way up to the likes of Ballmer, then you have no idea of the organizational structure of MS.

But whatever, haters gonna hate.

[beagle3]

1) They still control 90% of the "Office / Productivity" software market; They just got below 50% in the web browser market, they're still above 90% of the operating systems market for personal computers (a category that includes desktops, laptops, but does not include tablets); And something like 20% of server o/s market.

How can one construe that as "not dominant", I don't know.

2) It doesn't go up to Ballmer (there are no "likes of ballmer" in MS - there is only Ballmer). But it got at least two levels below (which is a considerable number of levels up from a "grass roots" start, anywhere from 4 to 8).