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

181–190 of 321 posts

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

#181

Post by alsadi »

ilovecaching wrote: post #173
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I think I missed this; who are you referring to? I scrolled through the list and didn't recognize anyone that I would consider a "destroyer of OSS" so I'm not sure if I missed something, if you're just exaggerating or a little bit of both.

I'm not going to name names, if it's not obvious go watch the last general session keynote. Edit: See my response below

Link?

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

#182

Post by venture_lol »

dstroot wrote: post #169
diminoten wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea isn't cynical, it's branding. The whole point of creating a brand like Moby is to trigger conversations about what level of service you're getting when you say you're using "Moby" vs. "Docker". The CTO hears they're using "Moby", which for the first time may make the CTO realize that some of the infrastructure for his business is relying on unsupported technology (or maybe he intuitively realized it but now…

Why do we keep equating OSS to "unsupported"? Some of the OSS I use is far better supported than licensed software. Drop an issue on GitHub and it gets fixed in a few weeks. - a CIO

Support means you can get someone (or a minor army if necessary) on the phone or on the premise immediately

Platinum support means you can get C-level executives on the line.

Reputation and counter party risk all factor into evaluation and cost of support as well

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

#183

Post by emmelaich »

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?

> .. there are people who reads a tutorial and ends up buying Docker Enterprise Edition ..

That happens ALL the time. Except they (managers) don't read tutorials, they read trade magazines saying that X is the new hotness.

So off they go and buy X Enterprise Edition.

This happens in the corporate world, not everywhere, but that's where a company gets the big contracts.

Not picking on Docker here, it's a great product and good luck to them; just a commentary on corporate fashion driven IT culture.

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

#184

Post by kordless »

rc_kas wrote: post #156
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.

Yup, and your's as well, by extension. I'd add that the rebrand needed to happen, given naming a company and a product the same thing is never a good idea.

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

#185

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

ilovecaching wrote: post #173
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I think I missed this; who are you referring to? I scrolled through the list and didn't recognize anyone that I would consider a "destroyer of OSS" so I'm not sure if I missed something, if you're just exaggerating or a little bit of both.

I'm not going to name names, if it's not obvious go watch the last general session keynote. Edit: See my response below

Well, guess I'll do the detective work. Here's a link to the Docker blog that has the two keynotes:

https://blog.docker.com/2016/06/dockercon-general-session-vi...

Guest speakers for the last (second) general keynote were:

-Guest speaker #1: Docker and Microsoft demo by Mark Russinovich, CTO Microsoft Azure

-Guest speaker #2: Docker at ADP by Keith Fulton, CTO, ADP

And just somehow I sense that the parent poster isn't objecting to the CTO of ADP. /s

(What makes the objection doubly silly is that Mark Russinovich isn't the usual corporate drone one might expect. He's the guy who did the Sysinternals tools and several editions of the "Windows Internals" reference on the architecture of the Windows OS.)

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

#186

Post by registrator »

user5994461 wrote: post #163
jacquesm wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Docker Community Edition" That's not Docker. That's Moby.

It's gonna take more than a github announcement to refresh the memory of 1 million developers ;)

Pretty sure that's exactly what Docker is counting on. Otherwise what used to be called Docker would continue to be called Docker.

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

#188

Post by dln_eintr »

ohdrat wrote: post #165
lprd wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I wish rkt would get some more momentum. In my opinion it's superior to Docker.

where's the Rocket Hub? Seriously how long is Docker Hub expected to float up there? Some are good quality, all the versions of tomcat for example. How long can such quality continue to exist?

That would be https://quay.io/ , but also the internet. Since rkt (or appc discovery rather) just relies on DNS/URL hierarchy to refer to images. Any web server can be a "registry".

OCI doesn't have an equivalent to discovery yet, but presumably it'll be something similar to the appc spec (https://github.com/appc/spec/blob/master/spec/discovery.md)

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

#189

Post by [deleted] »

ohdrat wrote: post #165
lprd wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I wish rkt would get some more momentum. In my opinion it's superior to Docker.

where's the Rocket Hub? Seriously how long is Docker Hub expected to float up there? Some are good quality, all the versions of tomcat for example. How long can such quality continue to exist?

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by Artemis2 »

ohdrat wrote: post #165
lprd wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I wish rkt would get some more momentum. In my opinion it's superior to Docker.

where's the Rocket Hub? Seriously how long is Docker Hub expected to float up there? Some are good quality, all the versions of tomcat for example. How long can such quality continue to exist?

There's https://quay.io but it doesn't really function as a marketplace for official images (except the ones from CoreOS).

I wish the market of container images had more competition. Right now there's Docker Hub/Quay (expensive, lots of features) and Amazon ECR/Google Container Registry (cheap, few features).

Post reply on HN