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

291–300 of 321 posts

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

#291

Post by dwaite »

chrisshroba wrote: post #78
e1ven wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like they want to rename the OSS version, to differentiate it from their commercial version. They're using the analogy of Fedora->RHEL. Moby = open source development Docker CE = free product release based on Moby Docker EE = commercial product release based on Docker CE.

What exactly is the difference between Moby and Docker CE?

Docker is a brand and a product, that product does a bunch of stuff beyond the simplest levels of letting download or build images and run containers - such as SDN, physical clustering, hardware provisioning, and service orchestration with load balancing and automatic management.

A lot of the community understands that "docker" has gained a lot of features, but they may not understand it is because Docker is the name of an integrated product suite a company wants to sell.

These features are added because Docker, Inc. wants to have commercial offering containing a full technology stack around containerization, a community offering to attract people to their stack, and open source backing the community offering so that enterprises don't get fearful of vendor lock-in.

But other companies want to use containerization. And Docker doesn't mean anything in their context, because they only want to use a few pieces and swap the rest for their own. In fact, they are resistant against using Docker because 1. It is iffy whether they could use the trademark, even if they were ok marketing a competing product 2. They don't have the same voice in the technical decisions of the open source project

Moby is an attempt to solve these issues: - It is a project with a vendor neutral name - Presumably, it will be managed in a way that gives vendors somewhat equal footing - It makes it clearer that the pieces are containers, etc, the project that develops all the open-source pieces is moby, and one of the products that integrates all the pieces is docker.

It is similar to how RedHat split out Fedora, except that RedHat didn't see the value in having a RedHat-branded community edition.

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

#292

Post by dwaite »

SadWebDeveloper wrote: post #155

So Docker is now called Moby or Moby is the OSS version of what i believe it will be the "enterprise" version of Docker. Like RedHat is to Fedora, Docker is to Moby right?

Think how RedHat is the name of a company and an operating system product (RHEL) assembled from the pieces in Fedora.

Docker is the name of a company and a container management product (Enterprise and Community Editions) assembled from the pieces in Moby.

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

#293

Post by nailer »

DonHopkins wrote: post #55
nailer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's less obscure examples: - nonce (infosec) - paedophile - gyp (node) - offensive nickname for gypsies.

And then there's mongo, gimp and git. I've just always assumed "docker" was in the same vein. Now they have to deal with the even more obvious connotations of "moby". Out of the frying pan and into the fire! Well, at least "docker" isn't transitioning to "scissorer".

What does mongo mean? I just assumed the meaning from skating / surfing.

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

#294

Post by alexktz »

shykes wrote: post #276
throwaway5432p wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're separating the upstream open-source project, and the downstream open-source product under 2 different names I think a lot of the confusion comes from the downstream product split between Docker CE and Docker EE. Many people are waiting for the other shoe to drop, because the point of releasing a separate binary version for 'CE' and 'EE' versions is very vague if the products are identical, with the extra EE f…

Docker EE already works the way you describe. DDC is now part of Docker EE, which makes EE quite different from CE. I want to address your concern but don't really understand what it is. What exactly are you worried will happen, and how does it affect you?

> I want to address your concern but don't really understand what it is.

Really?

It's a question of ethics. You must surely get that?

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

#295

Post by alexktz »

elfchief wrote: post #257
ilovecaching wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 This. I was a very early proponent of docker, and have been using it continuously since the very early versions. I read the release notes and most weeks I read the weekly email newsletter, and I still don't really have a clue where Docker is going, what its current…

Amen!

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

#296

Post by throwaway2048 »

chii wrote: post #283
elfchief wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 This. I was a very early proponent of docker, and have been using it continuously since the very early versions. I read the release notes and most weeks I read the weekly email newsletter, and I still don't really have a clue where Docker is going, what its current…

> what half the new features even do if you don't currently use any of these new features, and can't work out what they do, perhaps you really don't need them. Therefore, ignoring it and continuing on is the best cause of action. It's not docker team's responsibility to educate you!

Actually it is their responsibility to educate you. What do you think documentation does exactly?

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

#297

Post by HankB99 »

sotojuan wrote: post #112
stephenr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that how VC companies "work" ? "Decision makers" make unilateral decisions about technology and "engineers" just say "yeah I guess" when asked about using new tech? What fucking problem does Docker solve that a "decision maker" can understand it enough to get a result telling them to use Docker, yet s/he can't understand the concept of "open core" software. Docker's status seems entirely driven by me-too cool kids…

A lot of devs seem completely fine with being pushovers and yes-men to the MBAs.

I'm between jobs at the moment at least partly becaue I pushed back.

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

#298

Post by shykes »

ibotty wrote: post #289
shykes wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the Docker trademark, we will adopt guidelines similar to other open-source products , such as Ubuntu or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For Moby, there is no need for a strict trademark policy because Moby is a "meta-platform". In other words downstreams don't run Moby: they build their own specialized platform with moby . So they don't need to worry about the Moby trademark anymore than they need to worry about the t…

That still does not answer whether it's possible to name a project "moby-foo" for, say, an integration of moby with foo.

Sure, I don't see why that would be a problem. As a rule of thumb, Moby should follow the usual conventions of community open-source projects.

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

#299

Post by shykes »

cookiecaper wrote: post #261
shykes wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora

Except that you claim Docker will continue to have Docker CE (Fedora equivalent) and Docker EE (RHEL equivalent). These products will continue to be issued by Docker Inc., will they not? Will "Docker CE" be released as "Moby" in the future? If so, how will it be distinguished from the "Moby Project", which is just a bunch of "building blocks"? If Moby is the name of a collection of subsystems that are drawn upon to b…

> Will "Docker CE" be released as "Moby" in the future? If so, how will it be distinguished from the "Moby Project", which is just a bunch of "building blocks"?

Docker CE will remain Docker CE. In the Fedora/RHEL analogy, think of Docker CE as the recently introduced "RHEL free developer edition". It's still a commercial product - it's just free and open-source.

> With a little bit of finesse, this could've probably been construed as the boon for the open-source community that it seems you originally intended. "Docker Inc. donates its core technology to the open-source community and invites competitors to use it as the base of their own products." Too late to right the ship?

You mean like this? :)

https://blog.docker.com/2017/04/introducing-the-moby-project...

http://www.cio.com/article/3191344/linux/why-docker-created-...

http://windowsitpro.com/cloud/docker-brings-open-collaborati...

https://jaxenter.com/docker-containers-moby-project-133404.h...

Outside of the Hacker News bubble, this is a non-issue. 500 people read the title of a pull request, didn't even read the contents of the change, and clicked on the "thumbs down" emoji. Meanwhile the vast majority of Docker users don't scan the repository for pull requests. And the majority of those who do actually take the time to read the code, and usually have enough context to understand why we are doing this: modularization, openness etc. In between these two groups, you have Hacker News basically.

That pull request was confusing, yes. And we clarified it. But it's an implementation detail and definitely not representative of how the Moby launch was understood by the community.

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

#300

Post by styfle »

newsat13 wrote: post #252
shykes wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's a pretty good analogy. Except our "chromium" (Moby) actively encourages and facilitates creating completely different types of "browsers", not just Docker.

Well, chromium is also the base for CEF, node-webkit etc.

Don't forget Electron
Post reply on HN