4 ms·
He perhaps should have said Posix, or "not-windows". "Redis is written in ANSI C and works in most POSIX systems like Linux, BSD, OS X and Solaris without exter
by buff-a 15y ago
He perhaps should have said Posix, or "not-windows". "Redis is written in ANSI C and works in most POSIX systems like Linux, BSD, OS X and Solaris without external dependencies." [1]
So I think if you stack IBM, Oracle, HP, and everyone else Redis runs on without modification, his point stands.
[1] http://redis.io/topics/introduction http://redis.io/topics/introduction
And, really, it hasn't, with the possible exception of web startups
Hello!!! You are posting this comment where??? And have you heard of this little web startup named facebook? They use linux apparently. Zynga? Linux. Oh, yeah, Google, they use Windows, right? Amazon. And the largest company in the US, Apple, they use windows too, yeah?
Oh. You mean those other, giant, windows-using companies we're reading about daily in the Wall Street Journal.
- wulczer 15y agoYeah, those other companies like Walmart, UPS, Boeing... you know, the ones based outside of Silicon Valley, deeply entrenched in the real world.
- lreeves 15y agoWhat is the incentive to the Redis developers in expanding their target audience to include enterprises, which generally demand a vastly different feature set?
- thinkdevcode 15y agoI totally disagree as I work in a large enterprise that is a Microsoft shop and I would love to run Redis for some of our up and coming projects.
- buff-a 15y agoWhy? Why don't you use Microsoft SQL Server? I mean, your company decided that for sound economic reasons, Microsoft is the way to go. You did read all those reports that even though linux is free, it has a much higher TCO than Windows. Why do you think the same is not true of Redis? I think you are one of those malcontents that is not aware of economic reality. Sure, Redis can probably do on one box what will take months of tuning several SQL Server boxes. But that's the great lie of linux. It just looks easier to begin with. Much better to just pay Microsoft, and have a technology monoculture. It keeps staff costs down too.
- thurn 15y agoHow far do you need to go down the list of top websites by traffic before you hit a site running on a Windows stack that isn't owned by Microsoft? Quite a long way, I believe. Probably more than 50.
- burgerbrain 15y ago1) Amazon is not Silicon Valley. 2) I am rather interested to hear what you mean by "deeply entrenched in the real world". Are Google's and Amazon's profits somehow not real?
- wulczer 15y agoThe parent of the post I responded to argued that Linux has not "won the software deployment war". I happen to agree with that and I believe that throwing out a few examples of technology companies that do deploy their software on Linux is not a convincing argument. The way my GP alleged that no big companies use Windows as a platform came off as snarky and represents what I think is a skewed, SV/web-startup centric point of view.
- buff-a 15y agoDo you have any data on that? I only have two data points: I've contracted for two Fortune 10 companies. Both companies had Windows on the Desktop. But their Big Data / Big Iron was linux and solaris. Indeed the license managers (FlexLM) that authorized software for those desktops? Solaris. Needless to say both of these companies were outside silicon valley. So do you have data on that? Just doing some googling it seems that Walmart started out as an IBM shop, more recently Oracle and HP are mentioned. Are walmart buying Microsoft licenses to run Oracle on the HP boxes? I mean, they could be, but I think it would be unreasonable to assume that is the case.
- skrebbel 15y ago> Hello!!! You are posting this comment where??? Apparently, posting on Hacker News now means "you're supposed to disregard the entire world except web firms, or else you don't belong here"? Come on, man.