Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Docker is Dead

chrisshort.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Docker is Dead

#11

Post by notatoad »

dvanduzer wrote: post #8

If Docker's future is an acquisition, who will it be? I have not thought deeply about this, but like the author, I have also heard scuttlebutt. From the "good for us" perspective, the community would not miss the company's leadership on Linux Container standardization nearly as much as the aggregation service that is DockerHub. But from the "good for the acquiring company" perspective, who would care? A GitHub or a R…

It's been my impression that they're angling for either a VMWare or Microsoft acquisition. They both like buying things that live at the edge of enterprise-y and trendy.

Re: Docker is Dead

#12

Post by masklinn »

minimaxir wrote: post #3

The article title should probably differentiate between the state of Docker as a company, and Docker as a software product. That said, with all major cloud providers now offering Kubernetes cluster management with a free Kubernetes host , and the economy-of-scale offered by those cloud providers driving the costs of cloud computing down, I'm not sure how Docker Swarm can compete.

It does, the entire point of the last section is that Docker, Inc's moves look very much like they're setting up for the survival of the tech (containerd and Moby) regardless of the company's.

Re: Docker is Dead

#13

Post by dvanduzer »

mankash666 wrote: post #2

Dead? Really? TLDR - author disapproves of Docker's management & monetization strategy. However, offers no evidence for a "dying" docker. ClickBait.

The author offers some reasonably strong evidence to discuss:

    1) rapid adoption of Kubernetes
    2) shiftless response strategy
    3) aspects of the response strategy that imply internal *recognition* the company won't last
    4) changes to organizational structure / personnel
(I suspect, as other commenters have pointed out, that you are conflating Docker with LXC. This is understandable! Docker-the-company was/is very good with branding!)

Re: Docker is Dead

#14

Post by dvanduzer »

notatoad wrote: post #11
dvanduzer wrote: post #8

If Docker's future is an acquisition, who will it be? I have not thought deeply about this, but like the author, I have also heard scuttlebutt. From the "good for us" perspective, the community would not miss the company's leadership on Linux Container standardization nearly as much as the aggregation service that is DockerHub. But from the "good for the acquiring company" perspective, who would care? A GitHub or a R…

It's been my impression that they're angling for either a VMWare or Microsoft acquisition. They both like buying things that live at the edge of enterprise-y and trendy.

I know what you meant, but I think it's helpful to talk about "trendy" in the context that matters: something popular that will either widen the competitive moat for existing customers, or bring in new customers that are soon to graduate into wanting enterprise support from a VMWare or a Microsoft.

VMWare is an interesting possibility! Docker seems like it would cannibalize too much of their existing product line, but VMWare's existing products are already kind of self-cannibalizing. (This is why many engineers find the enterprise market so confusing. Nobody differentiates products well, because past a certain size, networks of human relationships [sales, support, etc.] matter more than branding.)

But from that "good for us" perspective, VMWare looks as bad as Oracle these days. I would still "vote" for Microsoft.

Re: Docker is Dead

#15

Post by Axsuul »

Despite the rise of Kubernetes, it's not for every use case and far from it. Docker Swarm and Docker Compose are extremely valuable with small deployments and development. It's by the far the easiest and simplest way to get a cluster up and running.

Re: Docker is Dead

#16

Post by cmurf »

tjbiddle wrote: post #4
mankash666 wrote: post #2

Dead? Really? TLDR - author disapproves of Docker's management & monetization strategy. However, offers no evidence for a "dying" docker. ClickBait.

Seriously. At the least, re-title to "Docker, Inc." because the technology is FAR from dead.

The argument is Docker is the company, and that company is in the best case going to be acquired (go away gracefully) or melt away. The technology is immortalized in Moby.

The article doesn't make a concluding prognostication about Moby vis-à-vis Kubernetes but very clearly thinks the momentum is behind Kubernetes because of the incoherent strategy behind Moby (other than as a means to throw the technology a life line beyond the fate of Docker).

Re: Docker is Dead

#17

Post by Axsuul »

minimaxir wrote: post #3

The article title should probably differentiate between the state of Docker as a company, and Docker as a software product. That said, with all major cloud providers now offering Kubernetes cluster management with a free Kubernetes host , and the economy-of-scale offered by those cloud providers driving the costs of cloud computing down, I'm not sure how Docker Swarm can compete.

Despite the rise of Kubernetes, it's not for every use case and far from it. Docker Swarm and Docker Compose are extremely valuable with small deployments and development. It's by the far the easiest and simplest way to get a cluster up and running.

Re: Docker is Dead

#18

Post by axiometry »

masklinn wrote: post #12
minimaxir wrote: post #3

The article title should probably differentiate between the state of Docker as a company, and Docker as a software product. That said, with all major cloud providers now offering Kubernetes cluster management with a free Kubernetes host , and the economy-of-scale offered by those cloud providers driving the costs of cloud computing down, I'm not sure how Docker Swarm can compete.

It does, the entire point of the last section is that Docker, Inc's moves look very much like they're setting up for the survival of the tech (containerd and Moby) regardless of the company's.

The nature of clickbait titles is that they instill a misleadingly false, exaggerated, or ambiguous narrative that is not matched by the content. This title is ambiguous, and has lead many of us on with the more enticing (controversial) narrative that containerization is dead. It doesn't matter what is in the content.

Re: Docker is Dead

#19

Post by LaGrange »

y4mi wrote: post #6
tjbiddle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. At the least, re-title to "Docker, Inc." because the technology is FAR from dead.

The technology is not "docker" but containerisation.

No, technology is "docker." Containerisation is a family of technologies, but things like runc or - especially - LXC are quite different.

Re: Docker is Dead

#20

Post by brucephillips »

> It is said that, “Great civilizations are not murdered. They commit suicide.” Docker has done just that.

It's easy to find fault. It's not easy to find solutions. Chris, what should Docker have done differently to succeed as a company during the rise of kubernetes?

Post reply on HN