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

441–450 of 764 posts

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

#441

Post by ihucos »

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.

Coming trough: https://github.com/ihucos/plash 90% done and useful

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

#442

Post by dralley »

sofixa wrote: post #423
antimba wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Podman winning is good. Red Hat consistently does things right, for example their quay.io is open source, unlike Docker Hub and GitHub Container Registry. The risks of not using rootless containers weren’t blown way out of proportion, because rootless containers really are much more secure. Not requiring a daemon, supporting cgroup v2 early, supporting rootless containers well and having them as the default, these ar…

> In this and many other things, Red Hat eventually wins because they are more open-source friendly and because they hire better developers who make better engineering decisions. We must be talking about a different Red Hat here. Podman, with breaking changes in every version, that is supposedly feature and CLI complete with Docker, but isn't actually, is winning because it's more open source friendly or better techn…

>Or systemd, written in a memory unsafe language (yes, that is a problem for something so critical and was already exploited at least a couple of times)

What memory safe language 1) existed in 2010 and 2) is thoroughly portable to every architecture people commonly run Linux on and 3) is suitable for software as low-level as the init?

Rust is an option now but it wasn't back then. And Rust is being evaluated now, even though it's not quite ready yet on #2.

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

#443

Post by tetha »

tsuujin wrote: post #357
ohgodplsno wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, 30 days notice is a walk in the park. Additionally, OP was the one complaining that changing a few URLs and eventually spinning up a new server. It's quite literally a one day or two job, unless you're at a company the size of Amazon (in which case, luckily for you, you're not the only SRE, so it's still just a few days). > The best I can come up with, at the moment, is waiting for each organization to make…

“Tell me you’ve never worked an enterprise tech job without telling me you’ve never worked an enterprise tech job.” My next 30 days are already accounted for, and will already include disruptions that actually come from the area of work.

Heh. "But shouldn't an enterprise have all of these things figured out and mirrored and also pay money to Docker Inc"?

Should? Certainly. But guess what kind of emergencies it takes to get these things finally prioritized and what kinda mad scramble ensues from there to kinda hold it together.

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

#444

Post by cma »

wpietri wrote: post #383
voytec wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People suffering from psychosis can create "facts" supporting their ideas and believe in them. Usually it's the stuff like "someone follows me", "someone wants to hurt me". Psychosis is the entry point to schizophrenia which is more or less, an illness in which brain makes stuff up and the ill person cannot differentiate facts from hallucinations. Possibly there was no defense contract at all.

It's not just people suffering from psychosis who do that. "29% believe aliens exist and 21% believe a UFO crashed at Roswell in 1947. [...] 5% of respondents believe that Paul McCartney died and was secretly replaced in the Beatles in 1966, and just 4% believe shape-shifting reptilian people control our world by taking on human form and gaining power. 7% of voters think the moon landing was fake." -- https://www.pub…

"Belief" or stated belief to an anon survey?

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

#445

Post by hellodanylo »

nine_k wrote: post #254
richardwhiuk wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be escrowing any Docker images you depend on, I'd have thought.

Good thing is that setting up an image registry in AWS is so simple! (Ha-ha, only serious.)

There is also ECR Public Gallery, which mirrors many public images from DockerHub. https://gallery.ecr.aws

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

#446

Post by dralley »

Gibheer wrote: post #326
mikepurvis wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of it also sounds a bit like leftover angst from Red Hat winning the systemd war too. Turns out hanging out in someone else’s cathedral can have some pretty big benefits.

RedHat has not won any systemd war. From all the distributions out there using systemd, RedHat is the one that uses the least amount of systemd features. They are even going so far as disabling features. See * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962257 * https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/systemd/-/blob/... Sometimes they even backport systemd features from more recent versions, disable them but le…

Those are not "systemd features", they are components within the systemd suite. Using systemd-init has never required that you use every component within the systemd suite (e.g. ntp, network management, etc.)

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

#447

Post by twblalock »

It was sad to see people defending Docker Desktop changing from free to paid licenses. Now Docker is charging for even more things that used to be free.

The defenders are reaping what they have sown. Next time a company starts to charge for things that used to be free, remember not to encourage it, because that will only make it happen more.

People don't like this and many of them are not going to trust Docker in the future.

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

#448

Post by hot_gril »

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…

First time I saw Docker, I thought "that's great, but how do they make money?" They're selling a cloud containers service while also giving the software away to their direct competitors for free. Maybe I was too ignorant to understand their business model? But now I'm thinking I was right.

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

#449

Post by muhehe »

Can someone recommend some simple "caching proxy for docker images"? Something where instead of docker/podman pull docker.io/something I would do docker/podman pull my.cache/something and it would do the rest. Official docker registry image is supposed to do this, but cannot mirror other repositories outside of dockerhub.

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

#450

Post by twblalock »

mc4ndr3 wrote: post #414
aprdm wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can vendor images. Never have your product depend on something that is in the internet. Spin up Harbour locally and put it in the middle to cache at the very least.

Imagine if everyone actually did this. Then we would have a myriad of base images hiding even more malware than we do currently. Not to mention vertically integrating the entire Docker layer set defeats the whole point of using Docker in the first place.

I've never worked somewhere that didn't have an internal Artifactory with copies of everything.

Not doing that is unusual, and actually less secure. Do you think it's sane or secure for all of your builds to depend on downloading packages from the public internet?

Post reply on HN