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

151–160 of 321 posts

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

#151

Post by [deleted] »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #129
vosper wrote: post #68

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

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

#152

Post by nobodyorother »

shykes wrote: post #75

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…

> Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load

What the flip did you do? They held off the Great Firewall!

/impressed

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

#153

Post by ilovecaching »

shykes wrote: post #75

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…

Do you know that keeping your users in a constant state of confusion is not the way to convince them that you're building a stable and secure product?

Also, isn't it kind of ironic that you built your company on OSS and then invited a well known destroyer of OSS onto your main stage?

Plus, I want my DockerCon money back. What exactly did you announce besides multi-stage builds at the general sessions that is actually benefiting Docker users? I don't care about your plumbing and constant rebranding, other than finding it very discouraging, I want to know what you're actually doing with your product this year. I guess nothing.

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

#154

Post by Khao »

stephenr wrote: post #77

What is it with tech companies and fucking terrible name/branding analogies? Docker. Ok, works with containers I get... wait. Your logo is a WHALE with a bunch of shipping containers on it. You know that whales DISAPPEAR underwater for hours at a time, and shipping containers are NOT MEANT TO DO THAT? Ok ok maybe it was an honest mistake hey whats this new thing moby.. wait. Whales. Moby. Moby dick? Your project is n…

A+ post.

Funny rambling backed up by a crazy well detailed article and you get downvoted by the HN hive mind. Docker is the ...ahem... whale in the room that you shouldn't criticize ever!

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

#156

Post by rc_kas »

nikcub wrote: post #56

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.

Your comment is the only one in this whole thread that anyone needs to read.

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

#157

Post by jacquesm »

matt4077 wrote: post #131
jacquesm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the commercial entity will keep the name so all the docker mindshare suddenly 'points' to a thing that people would have to pay for. If they had renamed the commercial stuff to Moby they'd have to start from scratch, now there are thousands of articles and links that say 'go get docker' intending to point you to the open source stuff, instead directing you to the commercial stuff. A very effective bait-and-sw…

What, exactly, is the bait in this case? The name? Because it sure seems as if I could still get everything as I could before. Do you really think there are people who reads a tutorial and ends up buying Docker Enterprise Edition for 9,950$ because they failed to see the "Docker Community Edition" link, which by the way, will still be available?

> "Docker Community Edition"

That's not Docker. That's Moby.

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

#159

Post by wstrange »

zobzu wrote: post #113
markbnj wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google does not need kubernetes to be successful or make any money to survive. Docker, on the other hand........

Indirectly I think Google does need Kubernetes to be successful.

If they can drive adoption, it makes it much easier to move customers away from AWS and on to GCE.

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

#160

Post by andrewbinstock »

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…

This is the explanation that OP should have posted. Thanks!
Post reply on HN