Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.alexellis.io

171–180 of 764 posts

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

#171

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.

Indeed. Docker should've been plumbing. They could've had a really nice business with developer tools on top of the core bits, but they decided to try to jump straight to enterprise and did a number of things to alienate partners and their broader community.

Instead of adding value to Docker they're just trying to find the right knobs to twist to force people into paying. And I think people should pay for value when they're using Docker substantially for business. But it seems like a very short-minded play for cash disregarding their long-term relationship with users and customers.

All that said: They have to find revenue to continue development of all the things people do like. I'd encourage people to ask if the things they've gotten for free do in fact have value, and if that's the case, maybe disregard the ham-fistedness and pony up if possible.

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ideally a coop of some variety This is the role I feel like podman, the tool developed by Red Hat, is filling.

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...

While that's true, for the amount of network traffic they're likely moving around, I wonder where they're placing their servers.

eg something like AWS with massive data transfer costs, vs something else like carefully placed dedicated/colocation servers at places which don't charge for bandwidth

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

#173

I think it's an interesting challenge with FOSS infrastructure in general, and I'm surprised it isn't more of an issue. Docker's storage is heavier than most, but what about other repositories like maven central, and npm? There must be significant costs associated with running those. These tools are all the backbone of modern software dev, and need a business model. It's reasonable that consumers should pay for the b…

RubyCentral pays the bills for rubygems.org. It’s a non-profit (501c3, not a 501c9). I believe you can buy an individual subscription to Ruby Central. Also profits from their conferences: RailsConf and RubyConf go towards funding infra (and paying people to wear the pager too).

That said, a lot of the true cost of rubygems.org is borne by Fastly, who provide the CDN.

Disclosure: I work at Shopify on a team that does work in and around RubyGems.

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

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems like another symptom of zirp/cheap money. Lots of ideas that could have been a neat feature or tool somehow ended up raising $500M of funding with no viable plan on ever monetizing. The fact that the product is successful but after a decade they barely make $50M/year of revenue against $500M of lifetime funding is crazy. As a user, you can work at a company with a billion in revenue and barely owe them a few…

[deleted]

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

#175

It was always unbelievable too me how much they hosted for free. I recklessly pushed over 100gbs of containers the last years, all free. Never made sense to me, even google doesn't do this anymore.

We are even using Docker Hub to store and distribute VM images... The so-called "container disk image" format is sticking a qcow2 file in a Docker image and storing it on a Docker registry.

https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/blob/main/containerimag...

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

#176

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.

what do you mean "demand profit"?

Last time I check rent is not free, food is not free, bus ticket is not free. No reason why software should be free.

Open source was invented by big co as a "marginalized your complement" strategy, not the ideal that is marketed as. As an evidence, I do not see any cloud vendor open source their code?

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

#178
post #93

Is there any drop in replacement for dockerhub? I’m concerned about all my random oss containers (like ruby-latest) that may come from orgs that aren’t able or willing to pay. Is there another container hosting site?

Aws seems to have mirrored some of docker hub for us (docker/library images seem to be hosted clones) and has their own public repos as well (not just docker hub’s images):

https://gallery.ecr.aws/

edit: typo

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

#179

They could probably have made more money from 1-line contextual advertising in image pull messages than this shit

I think their goal, rather than making more money, is probably to stop spending money on resources belonging to "customers" who don't pay them any money.

As annoyed as I am with the change, I understand their motivation. It seems rather entitled to demand Docker continue offering me the free service of storing hundreds of gigabytes of redundant, poorly optimized image layers. The complaints seem to largely boil down to "This is outrageous! I will no longer consume your resources without paying you! GOODBYE, good sir!"

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

#180
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker Hub is a massive expense when you consider the data storage and egress. To do that for open source projects you have to wither (a) have a lot of income to cover such an expense, (b) a pile of VC funding to cover the expense, or (c) pile on the debt paying for it while you grow. (b) and (c) can only live on so long.

That's a self inflicted problem by docker hub squatting the root namespace, though.

Getting out of a self inflicted problem isn't so easy. They have spent a long time trying. For example, putting distribution in the CNCF, working with the OCI on specs (like the distribution spec), making it possible to use other registries while not breaking the workflows for existing folks, and even some cases of working with other registries (e.g., their MCR integration with Docker Hub that offloads some egress and storage).

The root namespace problem was created by an early stage startup many years ago. I feel for the rough spot they are in.

Post reply on HN