Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 321 posts

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#61

Post by tcrews »

bonesss wrote: post #41
kibwen wrote: post #8

Indeed, it seems that github.com/docker/docker now redirects to this. From a technological perspective it's irrelevant, but from a brand management perspective it's baffling. Did they perceive the Docker brand as tainted in some way?

The Docker brand is "tainted" in the eyes of their commercial competitors who don't want to use shared tools/libraries. By creating an independent project commercial actors in the Enterprise space can share resources, components, and standards without having to explain why they`re better than Docker even though they`re built on top of Docker. This is a great move towards industry and container infrastructure orchestr…

It's not the brand that is tainted. People simply cannot trust their projects on someone else's commercial objectives. There is no indication this is changing.

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#63

Post by jacquesm »

DonHopkins wrote: post #53
logicallee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you'll clean up your phrasing (since you're getting downvoted for some reason) but could I ask, is this something you really first thought of when you heard the name? Is it UK slang? I've never heard it. I don't think you should be downvoted for the info (even though it doesn't actually apply, they will keep the name for their commercial stuff) as it's news to me.

Of course it was the first thing I thought of when I originally heard the name -- what else could it possibly mean? I assume they changed the name because somebody finally pointed out the first definition of docker on urbandictionary. But what was so dirty about my phrasing, other than saying the name of the project itself? (And it's only a myth that it's dirty, unless you never bathe.) Shouldn't any mention of that…

> Leave it to the prudes to shoot the messenger... ;)

Or maybe just because it is off-topic?

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#64

Post by logicallee »

jacquesm wrote: post #63
DonHopkins wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it was the first thing I thought of when I originally heard the name -- what else could it possibly mean? I assume they changed the name because somebody finally pointed out the first definition of docker on urbandictionary. But what was so dirty about my phrasing, other than saying the name of the project itself? (And it's only a myth that it's dirty, unless you never bathe.) Shouldn't any mention of that…

> Leave it to the prudes to shoot the messenger... ;) Or maybe just because it is off-topic?

The phrasing (as of when I write this comment, still within OP's edit window) can use work, but how's it off-topic? This article is about a name change and nothing but a name change.

But OP is Dutch - nobody, even from the general gay community (not specifically Holland), replied saying it's the first thing they thought of.

OP, you really made it sound like it's something as well-known as the word wanker - whereas it's extremely obscure.

If I'm in charge of the docker project, the gay dutch community is much too obscure for me to change the name because of.

-

EDIT:

jacquesm, I read your reply to this comment and we simply disagree. Their phrasing can use work, but the information is clearly 100% on-topic if it's genuinely the first thing they thought of when they heard it, and if they phrased it more neutrally. If a project were called "wanker" would you call it off-topic to discuss the UD definition on an article about its name? in reply to the call for speculation phrased "Why change the name? All the books and posts reference the name Docker."?

EDIT2:

this thread is becoming boring but as for the opposite of sarcasm,the opposite of /s are the three letters "srs", maybe in parentheses.

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#65

Post by tcrews »

bru wrote: post #5

More information can be found there: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 > Docker is transitioning all of its open source collaborations to the Moby project going forward. Should I understand that the core team wants to keep the brand "Docker" but use it in a commercial way, while Moby will be the underlying open source code? Is it Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora ? or Docker/Moby = Mongodb.com/Mongodb.org?

Here is the initial Fedora/RH announcement, for reference:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/m...

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#67

Post by jacquesm »

logicallee wrote: post #64
jacquesm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Leave it to the prudes to shoot the messenger... ;) Or maybe just because it is off-topic?

The phrasing (as of when I write this comment, still within OP's edit window) can use work, but how's it off-topic? This article is about a name change and nothing but a name change. But OP is Dutch - nobody, even from the general gay community (not specifically Holland), replied saying it's the first thing they thought of. OP, you really made it sound like it's something as well-known as the word wanker - whereas it…

Off-topic: something that does not have to do anything with the subject at hand, in this case, Docker, the company producing software, software in general and so on as well as rebranding or changing the name of open source companies. What GP's associations with the name are doesn't really matter and as far as I can see did not have any influence because they are keeping the name so that is certainly not why they are changing their open source projects to be moved under a new brand.

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#68

Post by vosper »

ernestbro wrote: post #34
glitcher wrote: post #17

Excerpts from mobyproject.org give a much better explanation: Moby is an open framework created by Docker to assemble specialized container systems without reinventing the wheel. It provides a “lego set” of dozens of standard components and a framework for assembling them into custom platforms. Audience Moby is recommended for anyone who wants to assemble a container-based system, this includes: Hackers who want to c…

Moby is the fedora like oss project and docker is the RHEL like commercial product. Purely a clever rebranding job. Timing is perfect - now that enterprise is adopting the technology, when you tell your boss you adopted moby he/she will say- but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby!

> but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby!

I see this kind of cynicism / snark all the time on HN (especially when it comes to Docker) but is it really warranted? Surely it's the rare exception? I've never met senior people who couldn't understand the naming difference between the open source version of a thing and the enterprise-branded version. Or a CEO or President. They're not morons.

This seems like cheap shots for upvotes. Or am I wrong?

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#69

Post by shykes »

bru wrote: post #5

More information can be found there: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 > Docker is transitioning all of its open source collaborations to the Moby project going forward. Should I understand that the core team wants to keep the brand "Docker" but use it in a commercial way, while Moby will be the underlying open source code? Is it Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora ? or Docker/Moby = Mongodb.com/Mongodb.org?

Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#70

Post by kristianc »

pilif wrote: post #13
kibwen wrote: post #8

Indeed, it seems that github.com/docker/docker now redirects to this. From a technological perspective it's irrelevant, but from a brand management perspective it's baffling. Did they perceive the Docker brand as tainted in some way?

> Did they perceive the Docker brand as tainted in some way? quite to the contrary I'd say. Docker will be their commercial enterprise offering and moby will be the open source project.

Other way round. It's historically been hard to get get someone to pay for something with an 'Open Source' brand.
Post reply on HN