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

101–110 of 764 posts

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

#101

Post by windexh8er »

pydry wrote: post #56
londons_explore wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker should have been a neat tool made by one enthusiast, just like curl is. Instead it has a multi-million dollar company behind it, and VC's who demand profits from a thing that shouldn't have ever had a business plan.

I think they potentially could have made a decent business out of it but they made a lot of bad business decisions. I find myself shaking my head at a lot of their technical decisions too. Podman seems to me to be a case study for how to do this right.

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 time when it put their customers in an awkward spot before containerd won the k8s runtime war. Podman is backed by much larger corporate machinery. If anyone thinks that Podman "winning" is a good thing then you've played right in to Walsh's antics. RHEL wants nothing more than to have no friction when selling all the "open source" tooling you may need in your enterprise.

Podman wasn't built out of necessity but out of fiscal competitive maneuvering. And it's working. I see so many articles on the "risks" of Docker vs Podman. The root wars are all over the place. Yet... The topic is blown way out of proportion by RHEL for a reason: FUD all in the name of sales. Is there merit to the claim? For sure. Docker's architecture was originally built up as client/server for a different purpose. That didn't play out and the architecture ended up being a side effect of that. But we don't see container escape nearly as much as Red Hat would like us to believe. I keep paying Docker because 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. No thanks.

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

#102

Post by anonymoushn »

tyingq wrote: post #81
timcobb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately Docker the company appears to be dying Docker the company is crushing 2022-2023… record revenue and earnings

Of course, I can do a lot of record revenue and earnings selling five dollar bills for $4. I'm curious what a path to profit would look like...is this kind of squeeze the only way to get there?

that would make you negative one dollar of earnings per sale

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

#103

Post by wenyuanyu »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #75
wenyuanyu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are techniques to compress and dedup redundancies... I doubt it is real 100gbs on their disks...

It's still 100gb over the wire and those bandwidth costs add up, especially if it's a popular image used by tons of projects.

yes, but the downward traffic costs (via docker pull) are likely their main expense, not the upward transfer.

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

#104

Post by microtonal »

majewsky wrote: post #76
quaintdev wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Podman is great and is first class citizen on Fedora. It also integrates nicely with SystemD. My only gripe with it is not many developers provide podman configuration on their install pages like they do with docker compose

Tangent: Why is the misspelling "SystemD" so common, when it has always been "systemd"? I would understand "Systemd" or "SYSTEMD" or something, but why specifically this weird spelling?

People not familiar with tacking on a lowercased ‘d’ to the name for daemons?

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

#105

Post by raesene9 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #94
raesene9 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more about Docker hub than Docker. Image hosting is expensive at scale, and someone's got to pay for the compute/storage/network...

I agree. The core devs should create a new company and focus just on the tools, with a simple, scaling licence model for them. As far as DockerHub goes, the OSS hosting costs do need to be solved, but surely they can be.

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...

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

#106

Post by phkahler »

raesene9 wrote: post #73
spicyusername wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ideally a coop of some variety This is the role I feel like podman, the tool developed by Red Hat, is filling.

This is more about Docker hub than Docker. Image hosting is expensive at scale, and someone's got to pay for the compute/storage/network...

>> Image hosting is expensive at scale, and someone's got to pay for the compute/storage/network..

Bit Torrent would beg to differ.

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

#107

Post by mfer »

tyingq wrote: post #81
timcobb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately Docker the company appears to be dying Docker the company is crushing 2022-2023… record revenue and earnings

Of course, I can do a lot of record revenue and earnings selling five dollar bills for $4. I'm curious what a path to profit would look like...is this kind of squeeze the only way to get there?

Docker Hub is a massive expense when you consider the data storage and egress. To do that for open source projects you have to wither (a) have a lot of income to cover such an expense, (b) a pile of VC funding to cover the expense, or (c) pile on the debt paying for it while you grow. (b) and (c) can only live on so long.

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

#108

Post by delfinom »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #78
jszymborski wrote: post #15

Has there been any work on making these centralised public repositories distributed?

Yes containerd supports pulling images from IPFS: https://github.com/containerd/nerdctl/blob/main/docs/ipfs.md

Except you need to pay for pinning IPFS files to actually persist. And there-in lies the crux. People don't got money to pay for their small time docker containers.

The cost of some of the IPFS hosts that will give you a dropbox of sorts still end up costing roughly the $20/month similar to the Docker $25/month for a team account.

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

#109

Post by Kye »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #88
aviramha wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am usually an early adopter but I keep coming back to Docker since Podman is still very rough around the edges, especially in terms of "non-direct" usage (aka other tools)

As someone who's been bitten by this, I'm not sure if it's an issue with podman itself as much as the tools which expect docker. It could be argued that podman is not a docker drop-in replacement, but I expect more and more tools to pick it up.

Is this a matter of developers constantly relearning the lesson of the folly of only supporting the current top thing, or is it a lot harder to support more than one?

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

#110

Post by toyg »

101011 wrote: post #50
wenyuanyu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are techniques to compress and dedup redundancies... I doubt it is real 100gbs on their disks...

Even so...storage is not free. Looking at the rates of enterprise storage costs compared to what Google or Apple charges consumers - I was surprised by how subsidized people's photo libraries are.

They are not, but actual usage is typically a single-digit % of promised space. So power users are served at cost (or even at loss), but the overwhelming majority of users are actually overpaying for what they use.
Post reply on HN