4 ms·
The fact that there's no source anywhere shows how important GPL is. What use is this to the rest of the community?
by klaussilveira 3y ago
The fact that there's no source anywhere shows how important GPL is. What use is this to the rest of the community?
- abigail95 3y agoI don't care about the source code of anything Amazon runs. The source code doesn't get me 11 9's. That's what people are paying for. Why is the community better off without this option?
- refset 3y agoAnything that helps turn RESP into more of a commodity protocol seems like a good thing in the long run. It seems to be simple enough that workloads can legitimately migrate around and users can vote with their wallets for whoever operates the most secure/available/portable(OSS) platform. By contrast SQL tech is in a far more precarious state.
- shrubble 3y agoSo basically if you can't run it anywhere other than AWS, it's no more newsworthy than talking about a COBOL compiler for an IBM mainframe; which is also equally capable of giving you 11 9's. BTW AWS can't possibly have been delivering on 11 9's given their previous outages; 9 9's is 0.031s over a year.
- markfive 3y agoPedantic clarification incoming: 11 9's is the Durability guarantee for S3. It doesn't refer to Availability.
- anonzzzies 3y agoBut for this memorydb it seems it is? Indeed not for entire AWS either way though.
- 0x457 3y agoNo, it specifically says for 11 9s for durability in the first sentence.
- anonzzzies 3y agoYou are right indeed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- didip 3y agoIn this case, that's right. I don't care about source since client-side is widely documented. And as for server-side, there's still Redis source code.
- nitwit005 3y ago> The source code doesn't get me 11 9's You mean four nines: > AWS will use commercially reasonable efforts to make Amazon EC2 available for each AWS region with a Monthly Uptime Percentage of at least 99.99%, in each case during any monthly billing cycle https://aws.amazon.com/compute/sla/ https://aws.amazon.com/compute/sla/
- abadpoli 3y agoThis post is about MemoryDB, not EC2, and the very first sentence of the linked paper states 11 9s durability.
- refset 3y agoIf nothing else, MemoryDB demonstrates that Valkey could be extended with much richer durability/HA guarantees.
- otterley 3y agoMemoryDB isn't software that's being distributed to customers. It's a service.
- borplk 3y agoCompanies can have private commercial things, get over it.
- dang 3y agoPlease don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We're trying for something else here. You're welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully of course. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- throwaway918274 3y agoEven if it was GPL you wouldn't be entitled to the source since it lives behind a managed service.
- redder23 3y agoIs this GPL 2.0 only? Because GPL 3.0 was specifically designed to prevent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization where they had used GPL code and had only binaries on the TiVo and refused to provide source, I think. Not sure if this only applies when people own a device themselves that runs the code or GPL 3.0 also applies to "managed services"
- rmbyrro 3y agoI don't agree, but I also don't think this should be downvoted. It's a valid point of view and can spark a worthwhile discussion to enlighten other people that might have a somewhat limited view of open source vs. cloud-based offerings.