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

301–310 of 321 posts

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

#301

Post by cpuguy83 »

skwirl wrote: post #273
julian_1 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happily stopped using Docker when they began removing key features - even in the face of widespread user protest , https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/5001

I recently went through a Docker Pluralsight course that made extensive use of this removed feature. I can scarcely imagine the politics behind this but it makes things much more confusing and the third party open source tool people recommend to replace it is difficult to use and doesn't provide the same information.

Part of the reason for removal (beyond just being difficult to maintain) is it is tied to the (now old) method of image storage where images were all just a tree of layers and any layer is considered an image even if you can't actually run that layer.

Today images are flat. You have a proper thing that is an image and and image is composed of layers. Some images may share layers (so they only need to be downloaded/stored once) but there is no hierarchy. You don't see layers anymore except by inspect an image (and even then only the content hash). There are quite some reasons for this to be the preferred method.

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

#302

Post by easuter »

cookiecaper wrote: post #255
dserodio wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle is the OSS destroyer (see MySQL, Hudson, Java...)

To be fair, the open-source method wasn't exactly working out for Sun.

They joined the party a bit late, they are already a sinking ship.

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

#303

Post by cookiecaper »

ambicapter wrote: post #263
cookiecaper wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're essentially attempting to distinguish their commercial offerings from the upstream open-source project. They are cornering the name "Docker" for themselves since it has a lot of name recognition. This has pros and cons. Red Hat and Mozilla both learned they had to be aggressive with trademarks, as people were distributing sabotaged builds under their product names. That's why Firefox in Debian is called IceWe…

> I keep hoping the containerization fad will go back in the bottle Is this because containerization in of itself should go back in the bottle, or do you think that people are just taking it too far?

I (mostly) think that people are taking it too far. "Containerization" is an old concept that has been done much better more than once (cf. Solaris/Illumos Zones and FreeBSD jails; I'll refrain from classifying classic chroots as "much better" though it's debatable).

Kubernetes is massively overcomplicated and has bitten off an offensively oversized problem space. The arrogance is staggering.

Ultimately, VMs and containers are attempting to solve the same basic problems, and while containers do have some cool features, there is no way that they justify the gross tradeoffs people are making in service of the fad.

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

#304

Post by lloydde »

vkat wrote: post #177
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 think he means Microsoft. There was a lot of emphasis on playing nice with windows in the conference. Good for developers all around. We were joking that it might be setting up the stage for an acquisition. I am personally hoping Docker follows the path of Redhat.

Playing nice with Windows has long been a priority. I saw the symptoms of this when I was following Docker GitHub ~2014-2015. In the area I cared about, Joyent compatibility, solid Linux/Unix approaches were significantly delayed or worse debated out of existance, because the concepts were incompatible with Windows. When you try to be all things, the result is something no one is satisfied with.

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

#305

Post by jononor »

shykes wrote: post #230
fpp wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not concerned that this move (relabeling the open source version different from how the product is known to the broader public) might further diminish the number of contributors that are now already down 50% / back to 2014 levels? see https://www.openhub.net/p/docker for statistics on that.

Those stats are wrong. The project has grown massively since 2014 and continues to grow. My guess is that you are looking at the stats for a single repo, when we have broken up the project (and its contribution flow) into many smaller repos. To answer your question: we think this move will accelerate the growth of the project, because it addresses the two most common concerns from contributors: 1) that the project is…

I added `cli` and `compose` repositories also now. Not sure which other ones should be added.

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

#307

Post by shykes »

jononor wrote: post #305
shykes wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those stats are wrong. The project has grown massively since 2014 and continues to grow. My guess is that you are looking at the stats for a single repo, when we have broken up the project (and its contribution flow) into many smaller repos. To answer your question: we think this move will accelerate the growth of the project, because it addresses the two most common concerns from contributors: 1) that the project is…

I added `cli` and `compose` repositories also now. Not sure which other ones should be added.

Off the top of my head: containerd, runc, swarmkit, infrakit, linuxkit, hyperkit, vpnkit, distribution, registry, for-mac, for-win, libnetwork.

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

#308

Post by bykovich »

bykovich wrote: post #225
kentt wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Solomon, Thanks for responding. There really isn't many more details other than that. It was in DockerCon Seattle in the space needle. I don't remember who the employee was. I did generally get the feeling that Docker employees felt at least wary or worse about k8s. That was from more than just that once situation, but from multiple interactions I had over the conference with employees. I only pointed out that one…

thank u for not being a narc

you guys love snitches, huh

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

#309

Post by defined »

venture_lol wrote: post #182
dstroot wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

That's "on the _premises_".

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

#310

Post by parasubvert »

kordless wrote: post #278
parasubvert wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I've seen the gleam in people's eyes when they talk about a ubiquitous computing infrastructure, of which it will run their code, without question, and never, ever breaks. " This seems to be a much higher level construct , like PaaS or Lambda, than what Docker provides. Docker was more of a bottom-up wake up call to those upper layers that lower layer technology usability still matters.

I never said otherwise. Again, the idea people hold about a technology, with a given tag, is moving in the direction of what they expect as users of said infrastructure. Please note that I did indicate this was an irrational belief. Whether or not Docker actually does this thing people understand it to be is another argument entirely.

Sure. I suppose I should have been clearer that I agreed with you, just was musing on the irrationality and the underlying category error.
Post reply on HN