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

Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

blog.alexellis.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 764 posts

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#121

Post by laserlight »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #88
aviramha wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am usually an early adopter but I keep coming back to Docker since Podman is still very rough around the edges, especially in terms of "non-direct" usage (aka other tools)

As someone who's been bitten by this, I'm not sure if it's an issue with podman itself as much as the tools which expect docker. It could be argued that podman is not a docker drop-in replacement, but I expect more and more tools to pick it up.

> It could be argued that podman is not a docker drop-in replacement

This is an unfortunate part IMHO. podman is not a docker drop-in replacement, but it is advertised as such.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#122

Post by cybrox »

osigurdson wrote: post #95
Sebb767 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The dev model of "we've lost track of our dependencies so ship Ubuntu and a load of state" never sat well. Docker, the company, is failing. Docker, as in containerization technology, is alive and very well. (edited for clarity)

>> Docker, the company, is failing. Docker, the container technology, is alive and very well. Is it though? Podman is more well liked (no daemon / non-root) and Kubernetes doesn't have direct support for it any more. I don't think it matters much that k8s uses CRI-O but docker needs to be #1 for running a container on a single machine. Yet, they seem to be letting that slip away because it is not directly monetizable…

The docker runtime is not supported by k8s anymore but docker built containers do still and will very likely continue to work for a long time.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#123

Post by mac-chaffee »

adolph wrote: post #83

Squatting and the effects of malware and poison images is my primary concern here. One of the things the docker api has going for it is that it is hash based. Aside from the first time, it doesn’t seem far fetched for a docker api client to refuse or warn based on comparing the new download’s hash to the previous hash.

Not a lot of people pull by hash; they pull by tag. Tags are not immutable, so the image I get from "python:3.11" today will almost certainly change due to security updates and I will be none the wiser.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#125

Post by JeremyNT »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #31

> Start publishing images to GitHub And when GitHub starts similar shenanigans, move out to where? I am old enough to know the we can't trust BigTech and their unpredictable behaviors. Eventually we need to start a Codeberg like alternative using Prototype funds to be self reliant. 1: https://codeberg.org/ 2: https://prototypefund.de/

It actually seems pretty reasonable to let BigTech host stuff, so long as you know the rug pull is going to come. Let the VCs light money on fire hosting the stuff we use for free, then once they stop throwing money at it figure out a plan B. Of course you should have a sketch of your plan B ready from the start so you are prepared.

If you view all of this "free" VC subsidized stuff as temporary/ephemeral you can still have a healthy relationship with it.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#126

Post by Karunamon »

phkahler wrote: post #106
raesene9 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more about Docker hub than Docker. Image hosting is expensive at scale, and someone's got to pay for the compute/storage/network...

>> Image hosting is expensive at scale, and someone's got to pay for the compute/storage/network.. Bit Torrent would beg to differ.

That's a neat idea but probably unworkable in practice. Container images need to be reliably available quickly; there is no appetite for the uncertainties surrounding the average torrent download

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#128

Post by voytec »

londons_explore wrote: post #36
jon-wood wrote: post #13

Docker the tool has been a massive benefit to software development, every now and then I have a moan about the hassle of getting something bootstrapped to run on Docker, but it's still worlds better than the old ways of managing dependencies and making sure everyone on a project is aligned on what versions of things are installed. Unfortunately Docker the company appears to be dying, this is the latest in a long line…

Docker should have been a neat tool made by one enthusiast, just like curl is. Instead it has a multi-million dollar company behind it, and VC's who demand profits from a thing that shouldn't have ever had a business plan.

> Docker should have been a neat tool made by one enthusiast, just like curl is.

I have nothing but mad respect for Daniel Stenberg. 25 years of development of great software, for which he had been threatened[1] and had ridiculous US travel visa obtaining issues[2].

[1] https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2021/02/19/i-will-slaughter-you/

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26192025

[2] https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2020/11/09/a-us-visa-in-937-days...

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#129

Post by javajosh »

windexh8er wrote: post #101
pydry wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they potentially could have made a decent business out of it but they made a lot of bad business decisions. I find myself shaking my head at a lot of their technical decisions too. Podman seems to me to be a case study for how to do this right.

Podman is interesting. I like the architecture problems it solves with respect to Docker but the way they went about it was typical big business Red Hat. Dan Walsh, Podman's BDFL it seems, basically stood in front of RHEL / OpenShift customers for years bashing Docker even when a majority of the things he was claiming were less than half baked. RHEL made sly moves like not supporting the Docker runtime, even at a tim…

>I don't want to live in Red Hat's world, with their tooling that they can just lock out of other platforms once they feel like it

Explain please. This sounds like you're accusing RH of sabotaging Docker, or planning to. That's a very serious accusation requiring proof.

Post reply on HN