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

Au Revoir

blog.docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 305 posts

Re: Au Revoir

#131

Post by tomcam »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #104
romanhn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a reason why most startups don't go big - burning vision is not even close to being the right formula for success. Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000. Just like precious few individual contributors are comfortable with and able to contribute meaningfully in this wide range of environments, it doesn't make…

> Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000 IMO thats a classist lie that keeps people in their place. Any reasonably smart CEO can learn his way from 10 - 10000. Yes, (s)he may not be capable of 10k on day one, but they can grow along the way.

What on earth makes it a “classist lie”?

Re: Au Revoir

#132

Post by mywittyname »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #102
hartator wrote: post #23

It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.

Counterpoint: Google brought in an established CEO to get the nuts and bolts of being a big company working correctly. I would say that Google is pretty successful.

Because the Google founders were PhDs with more technical interest than business.

Plenty of companies are founded by people who aspire to lead large companies.

Re: Au Revoir

#133

Post by zemo »

cryptoz wrote: post #15

Title should change. Sounds like Docker is shutting down permanently since the site doesn't load and the title is French for Good Bye.

I dunno, I knew what the content of the post by seeing the title and the domain on its own. People (and companies) don't say good bye in the first person when they die, since they're, uh, dead. They just go "there is ... another ... sky... walker..." and disappear.

Re: Au Revoir

#134

Post by kornish »

geofft wrote: post #53
hartator wrote: post #23

It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.

> Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. What is the evidence for this? We can throw anecdotes like Apple on one side and Unilever on the other, sure, but is there any study saying e.g. "Of these 100 promising companies founded in 1990, x% of the founder-led ones were successful by 2010 whereas y% of the outside-CEO-led ones were?" Making a bold claim like "Companies…

Noam Wasserman (Harvard, USC) studies exactly this in a paper called "Rich vs King". As you can guess from the name, the conclusion is that bringing in outside generally management maximizes the expected value of equity.

https://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma

Re: Au Revoir

#135

Post by segmondy »

dwc wrote: post #76
peterwwillis wrote: post #43

I think their blog being hugged to death is a good example of how this technology (read: web backend tech in general, not containers) is still too complicated for people in general to use it for simple cases, like scaling the load of otherwise static content. (It's wordpress, but still) We need solutions that require less resources and smaller learning curves.

I've been mumbling under my breath about this since the 90s. The basic issue as I see it is that nobody wants to do the up front work of separating out static, client side dynamic, and server side dynamic. If that work were done then nominal load would be much less to begin with, and scaling up would be much more straightforward.

Mumbling since 90s? Well, if you stopped mumbling and showed the world how it ought to be done, perhaps we would be doing it your way. Show us how.

Re: Au Revoir

#136

Post by xigency »

smallbigfish wrote: post #105
peterwwillis wrote: post #43

I think their blog being hugged to death is a good example of how this technology (read: web backend tech in general, not containers) is still too complicated for people in general to use it for simple cases, like scaling the load of otherwise static content. (It's wordpress, but still) We need solutions that require less resources and smaller learning curves.

> being hugged to death Whenever I read about this I can't help to think that people don't make a good use of a load balancer like HAProxy in front of their web-servers. Even if it's a single server behind the load balancer. There's this sweet spot where your server is handling requests as fast as it can but if you cross above it everything halts. To make it simple, this usually happens when one or more hardware reso…

You might be able to climb the ladder with a meta-post. Just do a write-up on how to host a front page post on a Raspberry Pi and tune the headline for the right audience. "This Site Can Handle 1,000,000 Connections on a Raspberry Pi" If you could collect data from the experiment and do a postmortem, that'd be great, too.

Re: Au Revoir

#137

Post by jotm »

callumjones wrote: post #101
peterwwillis wrote: post #43

I think their blog being hugged to death is a good example of how this technology (read: web backend tech in general, not containers) is still too complicated for people in general to use it for simple cases, like scaling the load of otherwise static content. (It's wordpress, but still) We need solutions that require less resources and smaller learning curves.

I don't understand why companies take on hosting their blog and marketing page (usually the homepage) when it isn't their core competency and a distraction for the engineering team to maintain. It looks like this is true for Docker which seems to be hosting it themselves instead of using Wordpress.com » nslookup blog.docker.com Server: 192.168.86.1 Address: 192.168.86.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: blog.docker.com ca…

When did that become so hard -_-

Re: Au Revoir

#138

Post by reeeprgenx »

hartator wrote: post #23

It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.

"Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision"

lol.

/not even close.

Re: Au Revoir

#139

Post by rando444 »

throwaway84742 wrote: post #25
jf wrote: post #10

I was able to get the page to load, here's the text of thet post: "Today I’m announcing my departure from Docker, the company I helped create ten years ago and have been building ever since. A founder’s departure is usually seen as a dramatic event. Sadly, I must report that reality is far less exciting in this case. I’ve had many roles at Docker over the years, and today I have a new, final one – as an active board…

Having read this I wonder what really went down. I get that his shares are fully vested, but personally I would not walk away from such a role at a company with this kind of growth and mind share.

If everyone had that kind of mindset, Elon Musk would still be running PayPal.

Re: Au Revoir

#140

Post by rconti »

throwaway84742 wrote: post #25
jf wrote: post #10

I was able to get the page to load, here's the text of thet post: "Today I’m announcing my departure from Docker, the company I helped create ten years ago and have been building ever since. A founder’s departure is usually seen as a dramatic event. Sadly, I must report that reality is far less exciting in this case. I’ve had many roles at Docker over the years, and today I have a new, final one – as an active board…

Having read this I wonder what really went down. I get that his shares are fully vested, but personally I would not walk away from such a role at a company with this kind of growth and mind share.

And many of us would. I'm not a founder or a visionary, but I often commented of my former CEO "If I had hundreds of millions of dollars and was in my mid-70s, I sure as hell wouldn't still be running a company, I'd have retired ages ago" ..... followed closely by the comment "and maybe that's why I don't have hundreds of millions of dollars!"

Not everyone has the desire to persist in that same role, particularly as the company evolves with size. For some, the money allows you to walk away and pursue passions that are independent of a need to make money. And/or maybe his passion is starting a new project that MIGHT be a business that MIGHT make money, just like Docker once was.

Post reply on HN