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

511–520 of 764 posts

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

#511

Post by Uvix »

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…

That's probably a good thing, because that makes clear you missed the point about the Docker Official Images program. Docker's support for open-source organizations has nothing to do with the Official Images program; they are generated by Docker themselves, rather than being generated by an open source project and merely hosted by Docker.

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

#512

Post by poolopolopolo »

pmarreck wrote: post #335
Kinrany wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Nix have an equivalent of docker-compose yet? nix-shell is amazing for installing binaries, but actually wiring up and running the services doesn't seem like a solved problem. Unless Nix expects a separate tool to do this once binaries are installed, of course.

docker-compose seems necessary only because you have your "official postgres dockerfile" and your self-built "web app dockerfile" (and maybe other things like an ElasticSearch dockerfile) Docker files seem necessary only because... well put it this way, think of a Docker image as "the cached result of a build that just so happened to succeed even though it was entirely likely not to, because Docker builds are NOT det…

except you cant deploy Nix files, and even if you could, better be sure that every employee is using Nix and have the same configuration. The whole point of docker is to make reproducible builds everywhere, not just your computer.

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

#513

Post by bravetraveler »

Yeroc wrote: post #508
bravetraveler wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who maintains the registries we use globally at work, +1. I know people groan at running infrastructure, but the registry software is really well documented and flexible. If you don't need to 'push', but only pull - configuring them as pull through caches is nice for availability and reliability -- while also saving from nickle/diming. They will get things from a configurable upstream, proxy.remoteurl . Co…

All good points but while this saves you from the docker images disappearing it does nothing to solve the issue of those images no longer receiving important security updates and bug fixes going forward.

Indeed, buying time at most :)

The situation just presented an opportunity for improvement, I don't intend to suggest it as a cure - but a good step!

Edit: For anyone curious, our upstream is actually the same software somewhere else, utilized by CICD.

That being the origin allows for pushes, with the pull-through caches being read-only by nature

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

#514

Post by BlueTemplar »

dahdum wrote: post #332
sergiotapia wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your business is depending on these open source projects to exist, shouldn't you be paying them so they can then pay for Docker?

Not every open source project wants to deal with donations / payments that could force incorporation, tax filings, bank accounts, credit/debit cards, and other paperwork. I certainly wouldn't want to deal with that for a side project.

If you are part of an organization, you already need to deal with most of those ?

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

#515

Post by BlueTemplar »

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…

How viable is it to fork Docker Hub ?

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

#516

Post by nickstinemates »

gorjusborg wrote: post #212
osigurdson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see Docker succeed. They invented / formalized the space and deserve credit for that. They are probably doing the right thing with some of their development tooling (though maybe that should just be spun off to Microsoft) and ensuring images do not contain badware is something companies will pay for. However, their core offering must be the leader if they want to survive. Devs must want to use "docker run…

> I'd like to see Docker succeed. They invented / formalized the space and deserve credit for that. If by succeed, you mean they deserve to have revenue, I disagree. They spun some cool work out of dotCloud when it failed. They seemed to delay thinking about how they'd monetize the work, and sort of fell into charging for developer tooling after their orchestration play lost to kubernetes. At this point, I think of D…

Time for a https://github.com/google/lmctfy revival.

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

#517

Post by drdaeman »

jayp1418 wrote: post #503
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…

That's why better to have NetBSD + pkgsrc combo for servers.

You misspelled Nixpkgs ;-)

I'm kidding, of course, but IIRC pkgsrc (and alikes, such as APT) has a number of limitations, for example a very limited ability to have multiple versions of the same package installed, making it less than optimal replacement.

(I believe a lot of people depend on ability to spin up a new version while the old is running, then do the cutover and shut down the old one after it's not is use.)

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

#518

Post by BlueTemplar »

maxloh wrote: post #307
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/

I don't think we will receive enough donations to cover infrastructure costs, let alone maintainers' salaries. Even core-js sole maintainer failed to raise enough donations to feed his own family, despite the library is used by at least half of the top 1000 Alexa websites. [0] People (and also big-techs) just won't pay for anything they can get for free. [0]: https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/master/docs/2023-…

I guess the SQLite team managed to do it by using an even more permissive license than GPL, which attracted big companies into funding them ??

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

#519

Post by pmarreck »

poolopolopolo wrote: post #512
pmarreck wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

docker-compose seems necessary only because you have your "official postgres dockerfile" and your self-built "web app dockerfile" (and maybe other things like an ElasticSearch dockerfile) Docker files seem necessary only because... well put it this way, think of a Docker image as "the cached result of a build that just so happened to succeed even though it was entirely likely not to, because Docker builds are NOT det…

except you cant deploy Nix files, and even if you could, better be sure that every employee is using Nix and have the same configuration. The whole point of docker is to make reproducible builds everywhere, not just your computer.

> except you cant deploy Nix files

NixOps and nix-deploy: EXIST! https://arista.my.site.com/AristaCommunity/s/article/Deploy-...

> better be sure that every employee is using Nix and have the same configuration. The whole point of docker is to make reproducible builds everywhere, not just your computer.

lol, "tell me you never used Nix without telling me you never used Nix" because it literally guarantees that, each project is a pure environment with no outside influences. THAT IS LITERALLY ITS ENTIRE PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE lolol

I absolutely guarantee you that you will have more reproducible builds with Nix than with Docker. I know, because I've worked with both of them for months on end, and I've noticed that it pains me to work with Docker more than it pains me to work with Nix (hey, it's not perfect either, but perfect is the enemy of good in this case)

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

#520

Post by tristan957 »

jacooper wrote: post #406
fisiu wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most of major distros ship podman in their repositories. Just use your package manager to install podman.

And these versions are often our of date, which is important given that podman is in active a development and you want to be using the latest version.

I don't understand what the issue is. Don't use an LTS distro if you want up to date software. Fedora and Arch are up to date for Podman. Alpine seems to be one minor version behind.
Post reply on HN