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

281–290 of 764 posts

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

#281

Post by yamtaddle »

raesene9 wrote: post #73
spicyusername wrote: post #35

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...

Docker Hub's the part I care about the most.

If I can't use it as a daemon-focused package manager that works more-or-less the same everywhere with minimal friction without having to learn or recall the particulars of whatever distro (hell, on my home server it even saves me from having to fuck with systemd) and with isolation so I can run a bunch of versions of anything, I'll probably just stop using it.

Everything else about it is secondary to its role as the de facto universal package manager for open source server software, from my perspective.

... of course, this is exactly the kind of thing they don't want, because it costs money without making any—but I do wonder if this'll bite them in the ass, long-term, from loss of mindshare. Maybe building in some kind of transparent bandwidth-sharing scheme (bittorrent/DHT or whatever) would have been a better move. I'd enable it on my server at home, at least, provided I could easily set some limits to keep it from going too nuts.

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

#282

Post by [deleted] »

dbingham wrote: post #230

As an SRE Manager, this is causing me a hell of a headache this morning. In 30 days a bunch of images we depend on may just disappear. We mostly depend on images from relatively large organizations (`alpine`, `node`, `golang`, etc), so one would want to believe that we'll be fine - they're all either in the open source program or will pay. But I can't hang my hat on that. If those images disappear, we lose the abilit…

[deleted]

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

#283

Post by voytec »

pshirshov wrote: post #263
voytec wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I applied for US travel visa as a citizen of Poland in 2012 and was denied travel due to "wrong type of visa". I was planning to visit my employer and spend 1-2 weeks traveling across the country. Apparently both business and travel visas were inappropriate for these purposes. To add, I was questioned in a US consulate/embassy (can't remember) in Warsaw by a person who repeatedly refused to speak in English, insisted…

I believe that B1/B2 should work just fine for these purposes. Probably you answered an officer (or airline worker) that you were gonna "work" there, not just visit your employer for an event?

Absolutely not. I had, and still have, my own small business in Poland and I was clear (in writing) that I am planning to visit my main client.

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

#284

Post by phillebaba »

nrvn wrote: post #118

After Docker announced rate limiting for the hub this was an anticipated move. Was just the matter of time. The only recommendation to everyone: move away or duplicate. One of the strategies I am yet to test is the synchronization between gitlab and github for protected branches and tags and relying on their container registries. Thus (at least) you provide multiple ways to serve public images for free and with relat…

Some self promotion but I have built a project that aims to solve some of these issues in Kubernetes. https://github.com/xenitAB/spegel

I have avoided a couple of incidents caused by images being removed or momentarily not reachable with it. It would at least mitigate any immediate issues caused by images being removed from Docker Hub.

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

#285

Post by yamtaddle »

SSLy wrote: post #251
Karunamon wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is going to accept worrying about whether the torrent has enough people seeding in the middle of a CI run. And your usual torrent download is an explicit action with an explicit client, how are people going to seed these images and why would they? And what about the long tail?

> enough people seeding the .torrent file format, and clients, include explicit support for HTTP mirrors serving the same files that's distributed via P2P.

Archive.org does this with theirs. If there are no seeds (super common with their torrents—IDK, maybe a few popular files of theirs do have lots of seeds and that saves them a lot of bandwidth, but sometimes I wonder why they bother) then it'll basically do the same thing as downloading from their website. I've seen it called a "web seed". Only place I've seen use it, but evidently the functionality is there.

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

#286

Post by maccard »

cratermoon wrote: post #268
robszumski wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the initial pebble that lead to Podman existing via Red Hat. No Red Hat customer wanted to pull or push to DockerHub by default due to a typo. No PRs would be accepted to change it and after dealing with customer frustration over and over...

I'm not familiar with the 'root namespace squatting' or the typo issue. Do you mean the image namespace as described here: https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2464012&seq... or is there something else? What sort of typo would cause problems?

Yeah, this is a good summary of the problem. If I write a dockerfile with

    FROM ubuntu:20.04 
    WORKDIR /app
    ADD mySecretAppBinary .
it will pull the base image from hub.docker.io, and there is no way to stop it from doing so. If I run:

    image_tag = test-app
    docker build -t $image_tag .
    docker push $image_tag
it will push a container with my secret application to the public docker hub, assuming I am logged in (which of course I am, because docker rate limits you if you don't). I don't ever want to do that, ever, under any circumstances, and it's just not possible to opt out of whiel using docker.

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

#287

Post by mynameisvlad »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #252
bushbaba wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s unplanned work. There’s other work needing to be done as well.

And a sudden fire is also unplanned work, but that's still your work. If this is such a threat, then maybe shift priorities around.

Are we not allowed to complain about unnecessary unplanned work being foisted on us with 30 days notice?

That seems like an entirely relevant complaint for this forum but from your first reply, you’re acting like somehow it’s the greatest offense in the world that someone pointed this out.

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

#288

Post by vilunov »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #148
JonChesterfield wrote: post #52

My first thought on this was good riddance. The dev model of "we've lost track of our dependencies so ship Ubuntu and a load of state" never sat well. However it looks like the main effect is going to be moving more of open source onto GitHub, aka under Microsoft's control, and the level of faith people have in Microsoft not destroying their competitor for profit is surreal.

What state are you thinking of? The containers are ephemeral and the dependencies are well specified in it. You can complain about shipping Ubuntu, but the rest of this doesn’t make sense.

Makes perfect sense to me, sadly. The dependencies are specified in excessively, that's why everyone is shipping Ubuntu. This is caused by and further facilitates the development style of "do not track what we use, just ship everything". Also, the dependencies are specified in container images, which themselves are derivative artifacts and not the original source code, and these dependencies often change in different container builds with no explicit relevant change.

There are three practical problems as a result: - huge image sizes with unused dependencies delivered as part of the artifact; - limited ability to share dependencies due to inheritance-based model of layers, instead of composition-based model of package managers; - non-reproducibility of docker images (not containers) due loosely specified build instructions.

Predicting future comments, nix mostly fixes these issues, but it has a bunch of issues of its own. Most importantly, nix is incredibly invasive in development process, adopting it requires heavy time investments. Containers also provide better isolation

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

#289

Post by freedomben »

dralley wrote: post #164
windexh8er wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OTOH, Docker didn't want to support a lot of features that enterprise customers wanted, like self-hosted private registries, because they wanted people using Dockerhub. And wasn't the runtime problems because Docker was very very late to adopting CGroups v2?

Yes exactly. GP is misinformed on history. Red hat didn't sabotage anything. Docker took forever to update to cgroups V2, and that broke it for distros like fedora that are up to date. The user had to downgrade their kernel in order to use docker, but if they did everything else worked fine.

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

#290

Post by robszumski »

cratermoon wrote: post #268
robszumski wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the initial pebble that lead to Podman existing via Red Hat. No Red Hat customer wanted to pull or push to DockerHub by default due to a typo. No PRs would be accepted to change it and after dealing with customer frustration over and over...

I'm not familiar with the 'root namespace squatting' or the typo issue. Do you mean the image namespace as described here: https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2464012&seq... or is there something else? What sort of typo would cause problems?

This was the proposed PR that is summarized in that article: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/10411

if you did `docker tag supersecret/app:latest && docker push` instead of `docker tag registry.corp.com/supersecret/app:latest` guess where your code just went?

Same on the pull side, if you wanted your corp's ubuntu base rather than just `docker pull ubuntu`.

Post reply on HN