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

621–630 of 764 posts

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

#621

Post by pxc »

poolopolopolo wrote: post #530
pmarreck wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

First you are tightly coupling your CI to your developers machine, that in itself is already a pretty bad idea. Second, if one employee wants to install htop on their machine, then every employee will have to install it, this can quickly become a problem when you have 500+ developers. Third, I think you missed the first part on the second quote, you are FORCING every developer to not only use linux but also to use on…

Docker already requires everyone to use Linux, which is why Docker Desktop is just a frontend for a dog slow VM on your Mac or Windows box.

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

#622

Post by girvo »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #89
girvo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does a pretty bad job of it then, because I have a local copy of my entire photo library too on an external hard drive. It’s quite nice really, cloud storage plus a local copy. I guess it’s somewhat of a moat because switching to some other cloud provider or my own system will be more expensive?

obviously hn readers will know how to copy the photos to their own computer. most people won't and that's the point

No I’m saying that Apple Photos literally copies to a local library automatically if you have a mac and open Photos.app. I didn’t even have to set it up. My partner did the same thing, and she’s decidedly not tech savvy. It’s one of the only reasons I ended up paying for Apple One for the 2TB cloud storage, is because of how easy they made it.

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

#623

Post by schneems »

Mustard_D wrote: post #492
schneems wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s constantly getting rate limited in CI then we have to re-run tests due to flappy failures. Maybe it’s an easy fix or something we did wrong, but we have a parallel system on DockerHub that just works™

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

#625

Post by windexh8er »

javajosh wrote: post #129
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…

>I don't want to live in Red Hat's world, with their tooling that they can just lock out of other platforms once they feel like it Explain please. This sounds like you're accusing RH of sabotaging Docker, or planning to. That's a very serious accusation requiring proof.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for anyone to find this on their own. OpenShift forced users to use CRI-O and RHEL removed Docker as part of the Yum repository.

Plenty of references to this: https://crunchtools.com/docker-support/

Even though, at the time, CRI-O was a much worse option. Yes, Red Hat plays competitive lockout games all day long. This is just a singular example.

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

#627

Post by wardedVibe »

ridgered4 wrote: post #493
wpietri wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ph…

if you buy into god, angels are on par with aliens, possibly even more probably present.

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

#628

Post by Sebb767 »

chaxor wrote: post #502
Sebb767 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it though? Podman is more well liked (no daemon / non-root) and Kubernetes doesn't have direct support for it any more. I've used "Docker" as in "containerization", since they are often used synonymously and the grandparents intent was definitely to criticize the latter. Docker itself will quite likely stay around as a name, but I have no faith in the company.

It seems the company is slowly trying to make users pay for it. Not too long ago it was free for companies, then they made companies pay to use it. Now they're making people pay to store images. In the next few years I would be surprised if they didn't introduce a new way to monetize it, leading up to removing the use of any docker executable at all without payment. Many will come to comment "that's absurd, and you c…

> It seems the company is slowly trying to make users pay for it

I appreciate that pun ;)

> Many will come to comment "that's absurd, and you could just use an old executable you already downloaded prior to them halting it's circulation", etc.

I don't see this as absurd at all. The problem Docker has is that it failed to use it's market share. Making these moves now that easy alternatives exists (Podman, open registries, k8s etc) just doesn't have the pull and alienates their remaining customers.

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

#629

Post by quickthrower2 »

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/

Hosting images can be doe via hypertext transfer protocol alone. Keep a local copy of your dependencies and back that up. Done.

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

#630

Post by r3trohack3r »

ijaeifjzdi wrote: post #537
r3trohack3r wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economics of hosting an image registry are tough. Just mirroring the npm registry can cost $100s per month in storage for tiny little tarballs. Hosting GB images in an append-only registry, some of which get published weekly or even daily, will burn an incredible amount of money in storage costs. And that’s before talking about ingress and egress. There will also be a tonne of engineering costs for managing it, e…

you just have to host the recipe and the hash/meta-data c'mon. This is not amateur hour. Hosting the whole thing only made sense for docker because their plan was always to do this microsoft style play. If you assume you are either open source or fully closed enterprises, the problem is very, very easy to solve. and cheap. Just relinquish full control of being able to close all the doors for a fee, like they are doin…

Rerunning a glorified series of bash scripts on every install doesn’t work at any sort of scale. This is why we’ve moved away from configuration over ssh to either:

1) deterministic builds with centralized caches

2) snapshots

Docker has some features of (1) but is really (2).

You absolutely do not want to download the recipe to build a Docker image instead of the image itself.

Further, the base images have no recipe. They are a tarball of a slimmed down pristine base os install.

Post reply on HN