Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 106 posts

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#11

Post by SEJeff »

akavel wrote: post #5

Newbie question: How does quay differ to docker hub?

Once of the nicer features is that they offer an "encrypted password" where you login to quay and click the "generate encrypted password" option in your user preferences. Then instead of hardcoding your plaintext password into your docker config json, it puts the encrypted password that is only applicable to quay.

For those that use LDAP authentication for this, it makes is a much smaller attack vector.

The per-team "organizations" is very nice and allows you to give teams their own flexibility while still running things within your own firewalls (on-prem or in a vpc). It is an alternative to docker hub with a lot of really nice features.

The ability to do scheduled mirroring of images from other registries (such as docker hub) and replication between different instances of quay is also really beneficial.

Disclaimer: commercial quay enterprise user for some time.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#12

Post by ska »

catalogia wrote: post #9
crb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "most correct" pronunciation of Quay is "key", as that link says, but the CoreOS team always pronounced it "kway". (I assume this has carried through to Red Hat.)

Kway makes more intuitive sense to me; it's like the word quail .

But this is also a word in common usage, and it already has a pronunciation: "key".

English is not a good place to go if you are looking for intuitive pronunciation.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#13

Post by philips »

SEJeff wrote: post #10
crb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "most correct" pronunciation of Quay is "key", as that link says, but the CoreOS team always pronounced it "kway". (I assume this has carried through to Red Hat.)

I asked Brandon Phillips (Then CoreOS CTO) on a call how they said it. He was quite frank it was pronounced "kway" and not "key", much to the chagrin of our Aussie coworker who still calls it "key". I've called it "kway" since.

Yes, the team calls it kway.

However, when I worked at SUSE a running joke was: as long as you love using it we don't care how you pronounce it.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#14

Post by mikece »

"...the on-premise offering of Quay was released."

It's my premise that the author of that press release doesn't know the difference between "premise" and "premises." I know we have a habit in American English to evolve the meaning of words faster than any other language but surely IBM's press team could offer to proof-read things like this before posting.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise

(And yes, I die inside a bit when someone on NPR ends a sentence with a preposition...)

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#16

Post by kitd »

mikece wrote: post #14

"...the on-premise offering of Quay was released." It's my premise that the author of that press release doesn't know the difference between "premise" and "premises." I know we have a habit in American English to evolve the meaning of words faster than any other language but surely IBM's press team could offer to proof-read things like this before posting. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise (And yes,…

IBM use "on-premise" all the time. Like it or loathe it, it's become the accepted neologism for "self-hosted".

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#17

Post by jschorr »

technofiend wrote: post #3

How to pronounce Quay: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2018/04/cay-key-quay.html Edit: I called it Kway myself and googled it after getting puzzled looks from my UK peers. The referenced article says "key" is the older pronunciation but either is acceptable.

I've always pronounced it "kway" but so long as its being used, I'm fine with any of the pronunciations :)

Disclaimer: Named, cofounded, and now engineering lead of Quay

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#18

Post by Polyisoprene »

badrequest wrote: post #15

Prerequisites: CPUs: Two or more virtual CPUs RAM: 4GB or more Why does a container registry need so many resources?

Unfortunately that seems to be common. Artifactory for example has similar requirements. Guessing that running full free text search and analysis on the artifacts are the main culprits.

https://www.jfrog.com/confluence/plugins/servlet/mobile?cont...

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#19

Post by crtlaltdel »

philips wrote: post #13
SEJeff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked Brandon Phillips (Then CoreOS CTO) on a call how they said it. He was quite frank it was pronounced "kway" and not "key", much to the chagrin of our Aussie coworker who still calls it "key". I've called it "kway" since.

Yes, the team calls it kway. However, when I worked at SUSE a running joke was: as long as you love using it we don't care how you pronounce it.

"You can call me he. You can call me she. You can call me Regis & Cathy Lee; I don't care! Just as long as you call me" - @RuPaul

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#20

Post by core-questions »

freedomben wrote: post #8
burtonator wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They believe in making money. The issue is that OSS is the only way to compete with the cloud. Quay would die without 3rd party contributions vs Amazon, Google, Microsoft.

Yes, any for-profit company has to believe in making money. However I think they could make a lot more by being stingy with their code. Ansible for example had a lot of paying customers that no longer had to shell out after it went open source. I (and many people/companies I know) would likely pay for RHEL if CentOS weren't a thing. There's plenty of opportunities for a cash grab if that were Red Hat's thing.

What they need to do is to come up with a monetization model that makes more sense.

As a devops, I rely heavily on Hashi and Ansible and Chef and so many other tools. However, their enterprise offerings are both too expensive and also too big for what I need. I can't get my employer to just donate money, so what can I simply and easily buy to fund the effort while still getting some value?

Grafana, for example, with paid plugins has made this easier: the moment you need a bit more, you pay for it. We need to extend this model out somewhat, get these vendors to offer more premium functionality - generally in the form of charging for integrations with other closed source software. That if you stay open the whole way yourself you can probably do the whole thing for free; conversely, if you have money for Datadog or whatever other service, then you probably have money to attach Grafana to Datadog too.

Post reply on HN