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

Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

sacra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 334 posts

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#111

Post by blowski »

isthisthingon99 wrote: post #72
fullsend wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great move by them to introduce a license requirement for 250+ seats but not waste resources enforcing it (as far as I can tell). Those who will pay, will pay. Those who won’t, will switch tools no matter how painful. They stayed relevant by keeping all their users, even those technically breaking the license, but also collected some cash.

I have a product that has zero reduction in functionality if your license or trial runs out, just constantly nags you when you do useful things with it. Eventually, the workers at the company insist on the company buying it. Sometimes takes 6 months hah.

"Nagware"

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#113

Post by isthisthingon99 »

hangonhn wrote: post #108
isthisthingon99 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a product that has zero reduction in functionality if your license or trial runs out, just constantly nags you when you do useful things with it. Eventually, the workers at the company insist on the company buying it. Sometimes takes 6 months hah.

This works incredibly well on me. I often use free or open source versions of tools and just ignore the nagging prompts about licenses. Then over time, if I like it enough that I eventually end up getting a license for it. I think the ability for me to see the value in something first before committing helps a lot. The free version sort of builds a reservoir of good will that eventually pushes me over to just paying…

Exactly the idea.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#114

Post by szastamasta »

Great to hear that. While I’m not a big fan of Docker desktop I really wish they restart docker swarm and kill thad abomination named Kubernetes.

Docker compose and swarm are really cool technologies - easy to start with and more than enough for small and medium companies.

I really hope they would bring it back and we start seeing managed swarm from cloud providers.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#115

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

icelancer wrote: post #80
Alir3z4 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WinRAR?

And mIRC.

For a while, I got around the nag by just never closing mIRC. :-D

After almost 20 years of using it, though, I thought "You know...this guy deserves his $20" and paid for it.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#116

Post by selfmodruntime »

jchw wrote: post #57
satvikpendem wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just goes to show how what enterprise customers value and what individual developers value are two very different things.

The problem I have with Docker is very simple; to individual users, they provide a service invaluable in a similar vein, though not of similar importance necessarily, to Wikipedia or Archive.org; Docker is literally a utility, which can enable tons of different interactions. The open source community is flooded with different ways to use Docker and take advantage of OCI images and whatnot. I just recently gave distro…

Docker Desktop is a godsend. I live most of my developing life in my terminal, but the ability to glance into what's going on in different services along with mounts, environment variables and logging is invaluable.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#117

Post by marvinblum »

szastamasta wrote: post #114

Great to hear that. While I’m not a big fan of Docker desktop I really wish they restart docker swarm and kill thad abomination named Kubernetes. Docker compose and swarm are really cool technologies - easy to start with and more than enough for small and medium companies. I really hope they would bring it back and we start seeing managed swarm from cloud providers.

HashiCorp Nomad is a nice alternative is something you can look into if you're looking for a lightweight Kubernetes replacement. Also, it doesn't support everything Kubernetes does, it should be enough for most use cases.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#118

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

microtonal wrote: post #98
FlyingSnake wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised by this as well, but maybe it was the HN bias that made that impression. My company received the memo from Docker to upgrade to paid version, and I helped many to move on to Podman. However there were teams for which getting a Docker Desktop license was easier than the Podman move. I am sure there are many more companies that can easily afford the convenience of Docker Desktop for a trivial fee.

Right, $5/$9/$24 is nothing compared to a developer salary. So if developers switch to Podman, fixing the occasional glitch is going to be more expensive than a Docker subscription. E.g. a while ago there was a bug (caused by a qemu update) that didn't allow Podman to run when the VM used >=4GiB memory [1]. I can imagine that such an issue would result in a large amount of wasted time for triaging and working around…

> Right, $5/$9/$24 is nothing compared to a developer salary.

And yet there are horror stories of finance not approving purchases that would significantly improve productivity.

While obviously greater than the $5/9/24 you bring up, I've heard of companies not wanting to buy a second monitor for their engineers, whereas I'd wager the productivity gain would pay for itself in only a couple months.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#119

Post by wiseowise »

jbverschoor wrote: post #76
FlyingSnake wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised by this as well, but maybe it was the HN bias that made that impression. My company received the memo from Docker to upgrade to paid version, and I helped many to move on to Podman. However there were teams for which getting a Docker Desktop license was easier than the Podman move. I am sure there are many more companies that can easily afford the convenience of Docker Desktop for a trivial fee.

What I don't understand is that devs that get paid 200k+ complain about getting any software license

Maybe because 200k+ is not net and if you weight in costs of living, costs of subscriptions for freaking everything nowadays, supporting family and other thousands of different things what’s left is not so much anymore? Not every developer is 20 year old tech bro.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#120

Post by jbverschoor »

mathverse wrote: post #91
jbverschoor wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is that devs that get paid 200k+ complain about getting any software license

It is the license fuckery, being stuck on a single platform, having to pay for upgrades for no reason ( well alright I understand this but it honestly sucks. You usually dont need the features and are happy with what you used) etc etc Pricing virtual assets is hard

I dunno.. maintanance, devops, companies keep having to pay for devs.. Hard to switch people.. It's kind of fuckery. It honestly sucks.

//

imo the thing to look out for is actual vendor / architecture lock-in. So just don't make things complicated yourself... Docker has it's uses, but right now it's being used for literally everything. I've been using jails, vms, and containers since the 90s. Docker is niceish, but somehow got lots of attention.

Oh, and you need to be sure your platform won't eat all your revenue.. like oracle :)

Post reply on HN