111–120 of 321 posts
From comment by @stykes on the pull request: Moby = open source development Docker CE = free product release based on Moby Docker EE = commercial product release based on Docker CE. Nothing is dead; and everything that was open-source remains open-source. In fact we are open-sourcing new things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not quite how it works. - Decision maker googles and finds there's this Docker company that will solve their problems. Heard good buzz about Docker in the news, how open it is, and how many companies use it. - Decision maker to engineer: "Hey can we use Docker software to solve problem X" - Engineer: "Sure, the software is actually called Moby now though" - Decision maker: "Meh, I don't care what it's called,…
Is that how VC companies "work" ? "Decision makers" make unilateral decisions about technology and "engineers" just say "yeah I guess" when asked about using new tech? What fucking problem does Docker solve that a "decision maker" can understand it enough to get a result telling them to use Docker, yet s/he can't understand the concept of "open core" software. Docker's status seems entirely driven by me-too cool kids…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, because it's true. Their employees were fairly outspoken about it at Dockercon. I had one just dramatically and rudely turn and walk away from me mid-sentence when I mentioned I was using Kubernetes.
That's just silly. Kubernetes is an open source project too, and I don't think Google is making a ton of money from it.
Docker, on the other hand........
I do not understand the amount of negative feedback on this. It seems logical to me to move the underlying open source components to a separate org from the proprietary stuff. Why the hate?
This is the one of the worst kind of business decision one can make. But I am not theirCTO and CEO. While not the same as Vagrant being replaced (and then revived because the alternate project was a burden), feels the same shitty decision IMO. Plently of people run successful OSS under the same name. Disappointing.
It's quite clever actually. First you get half the world behind your open source project and then with a little sleight of hand that suddenly becomes a valuable commercial brand. Not the first time this is done either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So moby now uses containerd, which I guess is not related to systemd even though systemd also has its own container system. Are there any components to moby that are OSS and a part of the linux stack or is this whole endeavor to break away from linux dependencies?
> So moby now uses containerd Correct. Moby uses containerd because Docker uses containerd. > which I guess is not related to systemd You guessed correctly. > even though systemd also has its own container system Correct I believe systemd uses a tool called nspawn to isolate processes in containers. We don't use systemd/nspawn, but I think it would be a cool customization to build a Moby assembly that uses systemd. >…
> Moby works great with Linux and will continue to. In fact you can build a complete custom Linux system with Moby, thanks to LinuxKit. (But you can also target an existing Linux system, LinuxKit is optional).
I think the question was more along the lines of "Are these changes being made to add support for other Operating Systems?" and less "Are you abandoning Linux?"
I don't think anyone was questioning your commitment to Linux, though I kind of am now because of how defensive that non-answer was.