101–110 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, because it's true. Their employees were fairly outspoken about it at Dockercon. I had one just dramatically and rudely turn and walk away from me mid-sentence when I mentioned I was using Kubernetes.
That's just silly. Kubernetes is an open source project too, and I don't think Google is making a ton of money from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also from that thread: Moby = open source development Docker CE = free product release based on Moby Docker EE = commercial product release based on Docker CE. Nothing is dead; and everything that was open-source remains open-source. In fact we are open-sourcing new things.
So essentially the difference between Chromium and Chrome?
The difference between them is like
Redhat Enterprise Linux (Costs Money, Enterprise Supported)
vs
CentOS (Community managed, community supported, Libre Free)
Hi all, Docker founder here. It appears that the explanation in the pull request is not very clear. Sorry about that. We didn't expect the PR to be the first thing people read: there is a new website at mobyproject.org. Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load, and I can't update the PR text to clarify. Here is an updated version with some clarifications: Docker is transitioning all of its open source collab…
So moby now uses containerd, which I guess is not related to systemd even though systemd also has its own container system. Are there any components to moby that are OSS and a part of the linux stack or is this whole endeavor to break away from linux dependencies?
Correct. Moby uses containerd because Docker uses containerd.
> which I guess is not related to systemd
You guessed correctly.
> even though systemd also has its own container system
Correct I believe systemd uses a tool called nspawn to isolate processes in containers. We don't use systemd/nspawn, but I think it would be a cool customization to build a Moby assembly that uses systemd.
> Are there any components to moby that are OSS
All Moby components are open-source.
> and a part of the linux stack
All Moby components run great on Linux.
> or is this whole endeavor to break away from linux dependencies?
Moby works great with Linux and will continue to. In fact you can build a complete custom Linux system with Moby, thanks to LinuxKit. (But you can also target an existing Linux system, LinuxKit is optional).
What a horrible title. Docker isn't being renamed to Moby, but rather all of the open source components are being spun out into a new umbrella OSS org called Moby. No need to s/docker/moby anywhere. This is going to end up being a case study in how not to make announcements, because the news is otherwise big/interesting.
This url is redirecting so that has changed (a rather important url): https://github.com/docker/docker This all seems so unnecessary. Why didn't they just keep docker docker and have docker-xxx for whatever other brands they want to introduce? Reminds me of CoreOS rebranding as Container Linux.
They'd lose 40k+ GitHub stars, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So moby now uses containerd, which I guess is not related to systemd even though systemd also has its own container system. Are there any components to moby that are OSS and a part of the linux stack or is this whole endeavor to break away from linux dependencies?
> So moby now uses containerd Correct. Moby uses containerd because Docker uses containerd. > which I guess is not related to systemd You guessed correctly. > even though systemd also has its own container system Correct I believe systemd uses a tool called nspawn to isolate processes in containers. We don't use systemd/nspawn, but I think it would be a cool customization to build a Moby assembly that uses systemd. >…
From comment by @stykes on the pull request: Moby = open source development Docker CE = free product release based on Moby Docker EE = commercial product release based on Docker CE. Nothing is dead; and everything that was open-source remains open-source. In fact we are open-sourcing new things.
So it's like Chromium, Google Chrome, and then imagine an enterprise version of Google Chrome?
Hi all, Docker founder here. It appears that the explanation in the pull request is not very clear. Sorry about that. We didn't expect the PR to be the first thing people read: there is a new website at mobyproject.org. Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load, and I can't update the PR text to clarify. Here is an updated version with some clarifications: Docker is transitioning all of its open source collab…
Such as "docker reputation for security became too terrible" or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If moby is not a replacement for docker (your words), why does docker/docker redirect to moby/moby (your actions)?
We moved the repository because the first task of the Moby project is to break up the Docker engine monolith into smaller components, and spin them out into separate repos. We started doing that with libnetwork, containerd, distribution etc, but we are not done yet. docker/docker is where that monolith lives, and where its maintainers work. Once the componentization is complete, Moby will be an integration repository…
This redirect will probably prove disruptive, confusing, and frustrating to a lot of people. I assume it's too late now, but you might consider asking github if you can revert to allow github.com/docker/docker to remain as it was for a time, and allow moby/moby to gradually pull in the actual code.
Perhaps there are technical reasons this would be infeasible. The github landing page serves as valuable marketing, branding, and social-proof (stars, etc) even if most folks don't end up looking at the code there.
Hi all, Docker founder here. It appears that the explanation in the pull request is not very clear. Sorry about that. We didn't expect the PR to be the first thing people read: there is a new website at mobyproject.org. Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load, and I can't update the PR text to clarify. Here is an updated version with some clarifications: Docker is transitioning all of its open source collab…
Is there a "im stupid and didnt follow news, here's why docker is being renamed to moby:"? Such as "docker reputation for security became too terrible" or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Basically I wouldn't ignore it.