[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.

[rbanffy]

It would risk diverting attention from the Unix port to the Win32 one. Even if the Redis developers don't pay attention to this distraction, its mere existence fragments the codebase and creates two semi-compatible versions.

And if the Windows version sucks badly, any Windows user who tries to install it on Windows will end up blaming Redis and try something else. On Windows.

Microsoft wins and we lose on all scenarios.

[mythz]

This is a very pessimistic view of the world and future events (which I don't share). I'd get that looked at.

A bad Redis port by Microsoft makes them look bad, whilst their endorsement of Redis makes Redis looks good.

The 'pro developers' that Redis attracts are going to be more than capable of identifying the culprit behind a shitty port.