5 ms·

Learning a different platform to a competent level is not really what you want to be doing when you're trying to implement production-ready systems under time a

• axefrog 15y ago
  My argument is more against the sentiment that could be summed up as "meh, just use Linux". What you say is absolutely fair enough, but should Microsoft (or other contributors) overcome the expressed limitations, then a promoted Windows port makes sense.
  • danmaz74 15y ago
    Redis is a server component you access through http. This means that there is no problem accessing a linux box running redis from a Windows (or whatever) application. So, really, the added value of a Windows port isn't very high, especially now that virtualization technologies are everywhere. On the contrary, porting front end software between platforms makes a lot of sense, but that's a completely different story.
    • regularfry 15y ago
      I have difficulty interpreting the difference between running a native process, and spinning up a VM (local or remote), as a trivial difference. If I have a desktop app which talks to Redis (for whatever reason), what this means is that I can't realistically produce a version which works offline. Depending on the market, that could be huge.
      • LeafStorm 15y ago
        If it's a desktop app, then you probably don't have serious enough load that you need the mainline version as opposed to the unofficial Win32 version. It's not like he's saying "If you run Redis on Windows I'll sue you," he's just saying, "I don't see enough benefit to it to accept it as part of the official Redis project, but I am 100% okay with other people working on it."
      • beagle3 15y ago
        > I have difficulty interpreting the difference between running a native process, and spinning up a VM (local or remote), as a trivial difference. Instead of running "redis.exe" (which you installed), you run "virtualbox redis.vdx". You could even have the inner redis use the outer disk with a little more work, running the internal vm read only. Configuration is slightly more complicated, as you have to both configure the inside redis and the outside virtualbox -- but it's all just a few short text files, and you only need to do that once. You can produce a version that works offline. You can even bundle it inside your product (virtualbox and redis both being free). And you can do it today without antirez's help. Really! EDIT: online -> offline; typo.
      • danmaz74 15y ago
        As I wrote, front-end software is a different matter. But if you want to create a desktop app, you probably just shouldn't use Redis - for sure this isn't what Redis was created for.
  • beagle3 15y ago
    > should Microsoft (or other contributors) overcome the expressed limitations, then a promoted Windows port makes sense. This being a BSD product, they can just maintain and release their own version, and they're not even obliged to share their modifications with the community; they haven't in the past (e.g. BSD sockets, zlib) so I wouldn't expect them in this case either. And as a paying microsoft custoemr, you should be getting such a service for your money. Really, this is all it is about -- You, yread and microsoft are trying to get Antirez to provide valuable (to yourselves) service for free.