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

701–710 of 764 posts

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

#701

Post by untech »

wpietri wrote: post #670
ridgered4 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would be very interested to see a citation on the troll rate.

Lizardman’s Constant by Scott Alexander:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...

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

#702

Post by raesene9 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #270
raesene9 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's easy. We're seeing other open source projects like Kubernetes struggle with hosting costs, and that's just one project. Ideally it'd be great to see the industry fund it, but with budget cuts in tech. I'm not sure that'll happen...

I haven't seen that, but I haven't been following along. I'd assumed they would be very Google-funded still. Is it a general CNCF problem?

So I'm not in the details of this but I understand from k8s slack that there is a fixed GCP budget for image hosting and Kubernetes is getting through it too quickly which is why they're moving the registry domain to a generic one from a GCP specific one, to allow for other funding to be found and used.

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

#703

Post by pksebben »

vhanda wrote: post #491
nindalf wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

whether or not it's generating cash at the moment is probably a secondary concern for Microsoft, behind having the code to train on.

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

#704

Post by 9dev »

rollcat wrote: post #72
davedx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually sounds reasonable to me? They have an open source program, the article says its open source definition is "too strict" because it says you must have "no pathway to commercialization". I mean why should you expect someone to host gigabytes of docker images for you, for free?

> the article says its open source definition is "too strict" because it says you must have "no pathway to commercialization" What a load of crap. Free Software's "0th freedom" is the ability to use the program for whatever purpose you wish. The definition of Open Source is even looser than that. They are asking their "Open Source" users to make their software non-free, by restricting its use cases. Anyway, the writi…

No, they are refusing to provide free artefact hosting to startups.

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

#705

Post by HelloNurse »

hosh wrote: post #482
rcme wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they were fully in control, there still would not be a distinction because whoever is controller this decision could change their mind at a later date.

My analysis of this: After Kubernetes became the de-facto container orchestration platform, Docker sold a bunch of their business to Mirantis. They shifted their marketing and positioning from enterprise to developers. From public sources, it sounds like their strategy is doing pretty well. The question then is, does Docker look like they are committed to open-source and the open-source ecosystem? 1. You would think…

> You would think that a developer-focused strategy would involve open-source, and that doing things to decrease their influence on the open-source world would reduce their influence

The influence you are talking about is negative: increasing control means increasing arbitrary behaviour, which means increasing your risks as a platform user, which means masses of pessimists fleeing to saner competitors who don't seem willing to take away your toys.

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

#706

Post by Dylan16807 »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #576
tsuujin wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

So, you're 100% booked with no room for anything? Congratulations on your management for understaffing your team and expecting you to do 120% if something happens, they're saving up quite a bit of money. You might want to start respecting your free time though, because they clearly don't give a shit about you.

Did you stop reading that sentence halfway through? There's room for disruptions in that schedule. But that room isn't infinite and this is going to add a lot more disruption on top of the existing expected amount.

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

#707

Post by ZiiS »

GabeIsko wrote: post #631
web3-is-a-scam wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great. We migrated our images to it months ago (not because of this, bandwidth issues mainly, we also vendor our base images on it) and it has given us exactly 0 problems.

This is what I don't understand about Docker's policy switch. Aren't all the companies that would potentially pay them just going to switch to one of the main CSPs Container Registry service?

I assume that is what they want. Without the jucy margins on running the containers hosting images is never going to be profitable.

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

#708

Post by Dylan16807 »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #373
broast wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you already have important planned and unplanned urgent work occupying all your SRE'S for the month? On a team or org that's already running thin? Surely you've been there.

I have. And it was also my job to say to management "hey, there's a very preoccupying fire right there, and it will delay this less important thing. If you're unhappy about it, send me an email explicitly telling me drop the very preoccupying fire." "Everybody has a plan until you get punched in the mouth" also applies to tech.

Getting punched in the mouth is pretty far from a walk in the park.

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

#709

Post by maccard »

nine_k wrote: post #292
maccard wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a self inflicted problem they've doubled down on, though, and that self inflicted problem is also the reason for their success. If docker hub could be removed in a config, the value add of docker the company is significantly diminished. It's hard to feel sorry for a company who actively pursued lock-in, and didn't make any real attempts at avoiding it (you know what would help? A setting to not use docker hub, o…

I fail to follow. If DockerHub is the part that actively burns money, why stick with it? If, say, Docker Desktop is the part that actively brings profits, why would it be afflicted if the users used a different image registry? Most companies, except the smallest ones, use their own registry / mirror anyway. Even better, the registry may continue to exist, but would (eventually) stop storing the images, and start stor…

I suspect that dockerhub isn't the part that bleeds money, I suspect like many tech companies the part that bleeds money is sales costs and developer costs (see gitlab). Unfortunately I can't prove that though.

Docker downsized from 400(!) to 60 people a few years back, and a quick search on Google says they're now back up at 600 employees again. They have ARR of $50M [0] , which is probably a little short of paying 60 people SV salaries, but it's nowhere near enough to pay for 600 people.

As regards to the registry problem, "most companies" I suspect don't follow best practices and in fact do end up using docker hub for things like public images, but more importantly _there is no way to enforce this in the tool, and docker have refused to implement this when given a PR_.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/01/docker-makes-comeback-reac...

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

#710

Post by intelVISA »

bayindirh wrote: post #697
hosh wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My analysis of this: After Kubernetes became the de-facto container orchestration platform, Docker sold a bunch of their business to Mirantis. They shifted their marketing and positioning from enterprise to developers. From public sources, it sounds like their strategy is doing pretty well. The question then is, does Docker look like they are committed to open-source and the open-source ecosystem? 1. You would think…

From my understanding, Docker is moving to become an open to (proprietary) enterprise packager for closed source, or paid for software development. - Keep access to big, permissively licensed open source software. - Charge for higher pulling limits and tools. - Keep source open, but infra closed, hence converting whole infra to "source available". - Keep "small open source fish" out of the pond, by charging for what'…

Sage insight, definitely looking forward to disrupting them in the near future :)
Post reply on HN