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

Docker

computer.rip

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: Docker

#101

Post by globular-toast »

Julesman wrote: post #27

I know I will get downvoted for this as off topic, but this is just the latest blog we've seen in this top 30 of many that show ZERO regard for legibility. Yes, I can zoom my browser, but c'mon. A 13px font for paragraph text is nearly hostile. It's not that legible to people with perfect eyesight, but then it's not at all legible to anyone with imperfect eyesight. It's like saying you don't care if anyone who reads…

This website doesn't even set a font size. The font size is just your browser's default. You have your font size set too small. This website is one of the few examples of doing it right. How can a web developer know what your requirements are? Only you can know that. There are many bad things about the modern web but fortunately being able to set your own font size is still a thing.

Firefox even lets you set a minimum font size. And there is an option to stop websites overriding your choices which helps with sites like HN (but not the one you are complaining about) which explicitly set a small font size.

Re: Docker

#102

Post by Kwpolska »

prmoustache wrote: post #100
Julesman wrote: post #27

I know I will get downvoted for this as off topic, but this is just the latest blog we've seen in this top 30 of many that show ZERO regard for legibility. Yes, I can zoom my browser, but c'mon. A 13px font for paragraph text is nearly hostile. It's not that legible to people with perfect eyesight, but then it's not at all legible to anyone with imperfect eyesight. It's like saying you don't care if anyone who reads…

Not sure what you are talking about, the font seems much bigger than the one on hacker news and pretty standard sized for a website or a desktop (which usually has default font size at 11 or 12px). Besides: - Nearly if not all desktops allow to scale. If your eyeseight is that bad you should set it at desktop level anyway. - All browsers and terminal emulators allows one to use his own defined fonts and size. - Nearl…

Hacker News is a terribly designed website and just plain unreadable without zoom. 12px might have been the standard 15 years ago, but most sites use larger sizes. Gmail and old Reddit are using 14px. The New York Times and Washington Post are using 20px (and those are usually longer reads). The fact that you can zoom and override fonts does not give people a right to design unreadable/inaccessible websites.

Re: Docker

#103

Post by prmoustache »

Kwpolska wrote: post #102
prmoustache wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you are talking about, the font seems much bigger than the one on hacker news and pretty standard sized for a website or a desktop (which usually has default font size at 11 or 12px). Besides: - Nearly if not all desktops allow to scale. If your eyeseight is that bad you should set it at desktop level anyway. - All browsers and terminal emulators allows one to use his own defined fonts and size. - Nearl…

Hacker News is a terribly designed website and just plain unreadable without zoom. 12px might have been the standard 15 years ago, but most sites use larger sizes. Gmail and old Reddit are using 14px. The New York Times and Washington Post are using 20px (and those are usually longer reads). The fact that you can zoom and override fonts does not give people a right to design unreadable/inaccessible websites.

>does not give people a right to design unreadable/inaccessible websites.

They aren't as the rendering of a website is ultimately always controlled by the client/visitor.

Any website whose semantic is only made of text is infinitely more accessible than another that would use bigger fonts but would include images or content that only render if javascript is activated.

And ultimately, they have every right to make it the way they want.

> Washington Post are using 20px (and those are usually longer reads)

In the full text maybe, I find much smaller fonts than those on computer.rip in metadatas and subtitles.

Re: Docker

#104

Post by drowsspa »

chrisbolt wrote: post #2

> There's been a lot of discussion lately about Docker, mostly about their boneheaded reversal following their boneheaded apology for their boneheaded decision to eliminate free teams. So making a bad decision is bad, but admitting it was a bad decision and reversing it is also bad?

Or they were just testing the waters and check the reaction to the decision, as companies often do.

Re: Docker

#105

Post by tyingq »

Kwpolska wrote: post #76
8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

podman runs or builds containers? as far as i understand it docker desktop does 2 or 3 different things and i haven't managed to untangle that yet because it hasn't fully broken my workflow yet. getting more and more tempting to remove it but i need something for my weird windows+wsl setup

Docker Desktop runs dockerd in WSL and adds a few things to enable working with it from Windows (e.g. installs the docker CLI on the Windows side and exposes the dockerd control socket to it). You can easily get rid of it and replace it with running dockerd in WSL on your own, or with podman-based tools.

Docker did do something smart with Docker Desktop by including wsl-vpnkit...to work around brain-dead corporate VPNs that break docker networking. Your alternative solutions don't work when AnyConnect or GlobalProtect, etc, are running.

Re: Docker

#106

Post by ransom1538 »

G3rn0ti wrote: post #50
soneil wrote: post #6

The narrative seems quite clear to me. They released the tooling and the services to become the defacto solution, and then Swarm was supposed to be the cashcow that turned that into cashflow. And then k8s happened. They've raised a tonne of capital, and it probably looked sane at the time. And now they're grasping at straws trying to figure out how else they can turn this into revenue. A lot of the recent narrative h…

> then Swarm was supposed to > be the cashcow that turned > that into cashflow. And then > k8s happened. We are still using Docker Swarm in production. It seems to be working fine so I always wondered why it never took off. But I am not a Devop. Can sb please give some insight on why kubernetes took off instead and why Dock Inc. failed with its cloud product?

"Can sb please give some insight on why kubernetes took off instead and why Dock Inc. failed with its cloud product?"

IMHO, Google did something smart/evil here. Google did not use the docker-compose style yaml files for k8s configurations. This turned into a big deal. If you have a docker-compose file and want to run it in k8s - you cannot. So you need to make a decision: go with docker-compose yamls which has no place to be hosted except swarm OR go with k8s yaml style and be able to run it on aws,gcp, etc.

Re: Docker

#107

Post by harha_ »

G3rn0ti wrote: post #50
soneil wrote: post #6

The narrative seems quite clear to me. They released the tooling and the services to become the defacto solution, and then Swarm was supposed to be the cashcow that turned that into cashflow. And then k8s happened. They've raised a tonne of capital, and it probably looked sane at the time. And now they're grasping at straws trying to figure out how else they can turn this into revenue. A lot of the recent narrative h…

> then Swarm was supposed to > be the cashcow that turned > that into cashflow. And then > k8s happened. We are still using Docker Swarm in production. It seems to be working fine so I always wondered why it never took off. But I am not a Devop. Can sb please give some insight on why kubernetes took off instead and why Dock Inc. failed with its cloud product?

Swarm is fine but k8s is a lot more advanced. I've used both and now that I understand k8s, I would choose it over swarm any day. Microk8s is neat if you want a lightweight cluster.

Re: Docker

#108

Post by xorcist »

kinghuang wrote: post #9
soneil wrote: post #6

The narrative seems quite clear to me. They released the tooling and the services to become the defacto solution, and then Swarm was supposed to be the cashcow that turned that into cashflow. And then k8s happened. They've raised a tonne of capital, and it probably looked sane at the time. And now they're grasping at straws trying to figure out how else they can turn this into revenue. A lot of the recent narrative h…

I feel like all that VC money was actually their undoing. Instead of working with the community, Docker spent bucketloads of money acquiring a lot of community projects and startups in an obvious attempt to become an end-to-end container solution company. But, they didn't have a plan and ended up killing most of those acquisitions. To me, it felt like Docker was using all the money they got to squash the community in…

In all fairness, Docker never worked with the community at all. At times it looked like they almost got their own community going, but it was never a priority to them.

They were always in a race to reinvent everything the Docker way. Which is, sort of, what you need to do if you want to become an enterprise software company, if that's where you think the money is. It's pretty much exactly in the footsteps of VMware. But to make that work, they would have had to work much closer to Windows, which probably was even harder than the Linux community.

Docker couldn't have existed without VC money. Free hosting was what made them hugely popular. Docker was a VC productization of containers.

Re: Docker

#109

Post by Kwpolska »

prmoustache wrote: post #103
Kwpolska wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News is a terribly designed website and just plain unreadable without zoom. 12px might have been the standard 15 years ago, but most sites use larger sizes. Gmail and old Reddit are using 14px. The New York Times and Washington Post are using 20px (and those are usually longer reads). The fact that you can zoom and override fonts does not give people a right to design unreadable/inaccessible websites.

>does not give people a right to design unreadable/inaccessible websites. They aren't as the rendering of a website is ultimately always controlled by the client/visitor. Any website whose semantic is only made of text is infinitely more accessible than another that would use bigger fonts but would include images or content that only render if javascript is activated. And ultimately, they have every right to make it…

Some users don't know how to use their browser's zoom feature. Most don't know how to change the default font in their browser, and those that do might not want to do this in case some sites break because of bad assumptions. Others don't like zoom, because it makes images look blurry. The default appearance of the page should be usable and accessible by an average user.

And yes, the 20px font applies to the full text. I'm not arguing that smaller fonts should be banned, things like metadata don't need to be as large. But the main content of the page should be larger and comfortably readable.

Re: Docker

#110

Post by ngc248 »

sofixa wrote: post #80
emptysongglass wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an absolutely massive ecosystem of tooling around it to make a developer's life easier and abstract away the confusing parts. No one needs to write K8s manifests directly if they don't want to.

The abstractions work very well, until they don't and you need to dive in 5 abstractions deep to debug what's happening, or an upgrade needs to be done and you have conflicting dependencies a few levels deep.

But isn't this the case with everything? I feel there is a necessary level of complexity to everything. Things can't be made simpler beyond a level.
Post reply on HN