I don't love the way the previous comment is written, but it's substantive. This is just drama; it distills the worst possible reading from the parent comment and tries to fix that meaning for the rest of the thread, which is exactly the opposite of what the guidelines ask you to do.

Further: the Redis take on display in that comment is pretty mainstream – very much including the statement about Sanfilippo's obstinacy – among systems developers. Even if you're an advocate for Redis, it's good to at least see the brief its detractors bring against it.

I agree that Sanfilippo can be obstinate. "Redis' creator doesn't deserve our support" is a shitty and vindictive conclusion to come to from that obstinance.

If that's ^^ unsubstantive drama to you, and the thing it's responding to isn't, calibrate your sensors because they're off.

I don't really understand why this is so traumatic to say. There are lots of people doing amazing things. Maybe we can look at projects run by people who don't disregard good technical advice for years out of what they themselves have called pride.

I knew my post would be controversial, but I certainly wasn't expecting that the main complaint leveled is that I'm supposed to ignore he and his community's prior transgressions because remembering them is "vindictive."

You disagree with it. That's fine. But people are allowed to say that things are or aren't worthy of support. Ironically, what they shouldn't do is call them "shitty and vindictive", which that comment didn't do.

Actually the comment is not substantive. Not telling what is the configuration that creates problems, not telling what's wrong about the Redis connection handling, not comparing Redis fork based persistence with the alternative in memory systems have, and so forth, is a exactly the hand waving the OP accuses of doing. Very short not detailed criticisms of systems are actually FUD because in complex systems the devil is in the details.

I think we're working from different definitions of the word "substantive"; yours appears to mean the same as "dispositive".

If it's the only think you criticize about him, then I guess he is worth of support. There is nothing wrong with this terminology unless you can prove otherwise.

Weird, I didn't mention it on the first post. I had 6 specific criticisms, 5 of which were technical.

If anything, this is an example of how the Redis community has actors that pop up trying to distract from direct criticism.

I'm being downvoted and flagged despite my post being substantive, on topic, and in direct response to a question. There are valid reasons not to use Redis.

I'm not dismissing the other points, I'm just discussing this one. I don't even use redis.

> If it's the only think you criticize about him

Sorry, but this kind of wording implying I have 1 complaint when I've clearly stated others gave me the wrong idea.

Are there any other points about redis creator you raised?