It sounds a bit different when not taken out of context:
> Redis is an example of this paradigm. Today, most cloud providers offer Redis as a managed service over their infrastructure and enjoy huge income from software that was not developed by them. Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed. Redis Labs is leading and financing the development of open source Redis and deserves to enjoy the fruits of these efforts. Consequently, we decided to add Commons Clause to certain components of open source Redis. Cloud providers will no longer be able to use these components as part of their Redis-as-a-Service offerings, but all other users will be unaffected by this change.
Yeah, there is literally no way to read that except as a statement of intent to move BSD-licensed Redis into Common Clause, even if that wasn't the first step taken.
While this is being portrayed as a communication error, that strains belief—it sounds a lot more like an after-the-fact effort to deal with massive blowback at the very clearly stated intent.
I currently use kubeadm for our small business cluster. 1 master and 2 nodes. We haven't put a ton into it but it seems to be running pretty well so far. Have done an upgrade from 1.7 to 1.9 without much/any downtime. Is there much more of a learning curve with Rancher?
Rancher 1 is extremely easy to learn. Generally you do everything from the UI (I only use the CLI to view combined logs). High-availability is easy too; they provide a load-balancer (haproxy) with good UI integration.
Rancher 2 has a nicer UI and is more tightly related to Kubernetes. But there are moreorless zero docs, so be careful.
With either version: it's trivial to grab the master and node Docker images, and deploy them to your local machine to have a play.
Indeed, it seems like a perfectly good solution to me. I guess it's something about purity and not being the perfect solution. Wouldn't it be great if python was as fast as a C program that took many times longer to write? Yes, but that would probably be magic.
At a guess: They didn't hear about it (keeping your ears open is a cost not everyone wants to pay). They don't want to bother with setting it up. They don't want to bother with maintaining it (even if it's as simple as reinstall every time you get a new computer).
We switched to MariaDB on freebsd 2 or 3 years ago. We ran into a couple performance-destroying bugs and while the devs acknowledged the issues, they made it clear they wouldn't be fixed any time soon. MySQL has been solid for us though.
