Are we getting ishmaeld now?
They could have ishmaeld to monitor mobyd and ahabd to kill mobyd if it misbehaves.
A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
141–150 of 321 posts
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#142Is there any wiki page of moby project on the WikiPedia?
This is not related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Project
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The goal is to confuse the people who haven't been following this into thinking Docker is a thing you pay Docker (the company) for Following the first thing they google without actually understanding what's involved, all the way to handing over money sounds about what I expect from someone who thinks Docker is a viable platform to use for anything worth handing over money for.
That's not quite how it works. - Decision maker googles and finds there's this Docker company that will solve their problems. Heard good buzz about Docker in the news, how open it is, and how many companies use it. - Decision maker to engineer: "Hey can we use Docker software to solve problem X" - Engineer: "Sure, the software is actually called Moby now though" - Decision maker: "Meh, I don't care what it's called,…
- Decision maker: "Also, do you really think I'm some sort of walking caricature of doofus management? And if so–what, exactly, is, in your estimation, the overlap of 'has absolutely no clue' and 'has heard of Docker'. Because sure as hell the CEO doesn't know anything about Docker. And while I'm the CTO, it happens that I, like quite a few of these decision-makers, came through the technical ranks. I compiled kernels when you weren't even born! So just once, I would wish you wouldn't attack some ridiculous straw-man of an argument, but the strongest possible argument which I could make. That's what I try to do, and it's why I'm the CTO, and yes, playing golf right now. Cheerio!"
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
So essentially the difference between Chromium and Chrome?
No, that would not be accurate. The difference between them is like Redhat Enterprise Linux (Costs Money, Enterprise Supported) vs CentOS (Community managed, community supported, Libre Free)
CentOS comes from RHEL, while Docker comes from Moby. So the correct parallel is Fedora-RHEL or Wildfly-JBoss.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#145I have no idea why they'd want to change such a great name. I am very disappointed. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docker
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.
I'm familiar with it, but somehow jumping to it whenever hearing about "Docker" is akin to thinking of AIDS when one hears about "hearing aids" or anal in Google Analytics - it doesn't seem like a problem unless someone decides to over-read.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#146Hi 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…
Tell us more about trademark and branding guidelines. What do you allow a downstream implemented by others to be called without requiring trademark fees ex by parties similar to amazon (public cloud) or ovh (data center) or redhat/fedora (software vendor) and even nvidia (cuda docker-like) .
For example fedora and firefox has strict trademark policy eventhough they are opensource.
Can I call my tool moby-something?
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. >…
If Moby depends on LinuxKit, why the LinuxKit's README ask you to build the Moby tool as first thing, and all the examples imply using moby? Shouldn't LinuxKit be agnostic of the existence of Moby?
I think the additional confusion here is that LinuxKit (or at least the resulting OS that powers Docker for Mac/Win/etc) used to be internally called Moby, so the build tool just hasn't been renamed.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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). I think the question was more along the lines of "Are these changes being made to add support for other Operating Systems?" and less "Are you…
Somehow I feel that with this announcement and his (defensive) answers to simple questions that call for clarification, that the interest in rkt just went up some.
Honestly, I wish rkt would get some more momentum. In my opinion it's superior to Docker.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
thank you, makes sense now. why do they think we think that you can take an open source thing and make it closed source? All you can do is force them to buy commercial licenses by using a GPL on Moby. That is common use of GPL after the fact (see ExtJS history), but I'm not sure how they get around the viral aspect of GPL when they are using source from GPL project in their commercial offering. They'd have to be comp…
Who's "they" in this little conspiracy theory? There's nothing viral about using GPL code. Your docker containers are probably running on Linux, which is also GPL, and that has neither infected nor affected you, has it?
"they" refers to the business creating the software--extjs or docker.
It's viral, any connection whatsoever, not sure where they draw the line. GPL is just not enforced except when it comes to selling software licenses.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I've known a CEO of a company not know what the difference between Centos and Redhat is. All his company's servers ran Centos.
Not knowing the difference isn't the same as preferring one because it's a buzzword.