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

491–500 of 764 posts

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

#491

Post by vhanda »

nindalf wrote: post #227
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/

> And when GitHub starts similar shenanigans The difference between GitHub and Docker is that GitHub is profitable.

Genuine question: Is Github profitable? I can't seem to figure out if it was before or after the acquisition from Microsoft.

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

#492

Post by Mustard_D »

schneems wrote: post #192
miyuru wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aws already have one https://gallery.ecr.aws/

My team used ECR for some stuff and it’s not great. We want to move on from it.

My team also user ECR, but I've not got any complaints. What issues do you have with it?

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

#493

Post by ridgered4 »

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…

The other day some one mentioned any of these surveys consistently have about a 5% troll rate.

The 77% belief in angels is bizarre though. Like I believe in the possibility of aliens, the universe is quite large. Although I think all spacecraft sightings are almost certainly just mundane stuff from spy planes to weather balloons, etc. I even believe in the possibility of ghosts being real, more likely some strange phenomenon we can't explain that we might misidentify as ghosts. But angels?

One man's angel is another man's ghost or alien though I guess.

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

#494

Post by jacooper »

remram wrote: post #190
koolba wrote: post #3

Can we just get the big three cloud players to make a new public repo? They’ve got oodles of bandwidth and storage, plus the advantage that a lot of access would be local to their private networks. Setup a non-profit, dedicate resources from each of them spendable as $X dollars of credits, and this problem is solved in a way that works for the real world. Not some federated mess that will never get off the ground.

quay.io is a pretty popular general-purpose repo, it replaced docker.io for many projects when they started rate-limiting.

There is no free tier https://quay.io/plans/

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

#495

Post by chaxor »

screamingninja wrote: post #221
user3939382 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should use DHT/BitTorrent. Organizations could share magnet links to the official images. OS projects have been doing it for years with ISOs.

BitTorrent will solve the distribution problem but not magically provide more storage. Someone still has to foot the bill for storing gigabytes (or terabytes) worth of docker images.

This doesn't make sense as an argument at all. If there isn't anyone using the image, no one will have it on their computer... Sure - but that isn't as much of an issue if you have a build file that constructs the image up from more basic parts. Secondly, the popular files get way way faster with the more their used/downloaded. Torrent is a phenomenal *wonderful* system to distribute Machine Learning weights, docker images, and databases. It's a developers dream for a basic utility of distributing data. Potentially ipfs could be useful too, but idk much about it specifically.

One of the most revolutionary and fundamental tools to be made is a basic way / template / paradigm which constructs databases in a replicable way, such that the hash of the code is mapped to the hash of the data. Then the user could either just download the data or reproduce it locally, depending on their system's capabilities, and automatically become a host for that data in the network.

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

#496

Post by [deleted] »

zamnos wrote: post #488
stingraycharles wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue that only the person who is in control could say “for certain”, and as such, that is the implicit differentiator between those two phrases.

I mean yeah okay fine the phrase is then "according to your understanding of the rules set forth by Docker, as of today's edit of the linked PDF (2023-03-15), and in accordance with the current (2023-03-15) configuration of the three images, `alpine`, `node`, and `golang`; are those three images covered by the open source program and will continue to be accessible or will those images cease to be accessible by non-pa…

[deleted]

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

#497

Post by dividedbyzero »

Woodi wrote: post #478
friendzis wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If those images disappear, we lose the ability to release and that's not acceptable. left-pad moment once again. > I mean, 30 days isn't enough time to find alternatives and migrate. Maybe take control of mission critical dependencies and self-host?

> Maybe take control of mission critical dependencies and self-host? Last few years prove that this option is a no-go - they just don't do such things ! Independence ? Self-sufficiency ? Security ? Local, fast access ? Obviousness ? No payment required ? Avoid at all costs !

> Last few years prove that this option is a no-go - they just don't do such things !

Who are "they"?

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

#498

Post by dividedbyzero »

hosh wrote: post #483
sangnoir wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a stop-gap measure. There are dozens of companies chomping at the bit to replace Docker as THE docker registry: I'd bet someone at Github is very busy at this very moment.

The article talked about using the Github Container Registry, which was launched in 2020.

Those very busy people at Github may well be in marketing

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

#500

Post by stingraycharles »

zamnos wrote: post #488
stingraycharles wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue that only the person who is in control could say “for certain”, and as such, that is the implicit differentiator between those two phrases.

I mean yeah okay fine the phrase is then "according to your understanding of the rules set forth by Docker, as of today's edit of the linked PDF (2023-03-15), and in accordance with the current (2023-03-15) configuration of the three images, `alpine`, `node`, and `golang`; are those three images covered by the open source program and will continue to be accessible or will those images cease to be accessible by non-pa…

I may sound pedantic, but in all honesty, Docker has been quite hostile over the past few years in terms of monetizing / saving costs, so nothing would surprise me at this point. I would definitely not feel comfortable saying "for certain". Phrased differently, if the person who is in control says "for certain", vs. some random HN user, I would attach a lot more value to the statement made by the personal in control.
Post reply on HN