At the top of the software stack it is a horror that everyone bellow you can always choose something else. Stand on your own two feet and achieve nothing or invest knowing your investments may be canceled by politics, monetization, etc.
I.e. if there is too much fragments in redis alternatives, whatever skills or contributions you made you can't use in any organization because they will avoid all redis like solutions.
It is the job of senior Engineering leadership to take these considerations into account.
Some decide to purchase, others decide to build in house, and others yet decide to design in an agnostic manner.
Software is a tool used to build products.
We can nerd out about a hammer all we want, but if you aren't a hammer manufacturer, a major hammer buyer, or someone who has critically contributed to the R&D of the entire hammer industry, your opinions are basically useless.
I personally don't care what hammer is used so long as my house is built.
If this truly irks you, you absolutely should create an alternative.
> I.e. if there is too much fragments in redis alternatives, whatever skills or contributions you made you can't use in any organization because they will avoid all redis like solutions
Patently false, as the proliferation of SQL and SQL-esque systems has shown.
I.e. if there is too much fragments in redis alternatives, whatever skills or contributions you made you can't use in any organization because they will avoid all redis like solutions.