I have no idea why they'd want to change such a great name. I am very disappointed. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docker
We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14157015.
A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
121–130 of 321 posts
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#122Earlier 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.
That doesn't make it non-annoying. I am personally annoyed at the current state of the open source ecosystem where all the top open source projects are dominated by large tech co's.
These large companies are developing open source as a strategic asset but most people have no idea and just think they're being altruistic.
The reason this really sucks is because as a result, all the large projects backed by large companies kill of the alternatives which have very pure motivation. Just like react is replacing a pure open standards based way of web development. Sure, it's "open source", but this is not right.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How is that clever? You just renamed your brand away and lost all the credit from it.
Because the commercial entity will keep the name so all the docker mindshare suddenly 'points' to a thing that people would have to pay for.
If they had renamed the commercial stuff to Moby they'd have to start from scratch, now there are thousands of articles and links that say 'go get docker' intending to point you to the open source stuff, instead directing you to the commercial stuff.
A very effective bait-and-switch.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#124@shykes - so im one of the lonely few that love Docker Swarmkit (not Swarm - cos, that would be too confusing right !). I have spent a lot of time in the Kubernetes ecosystem (including several SIG) and value the batteries-included setup that Docker Swarm brings.
More recently, I was part of a discussion where Kubernetes has decided to roll its own logging infrastructure, while leaving important parts like log rotation still undecided.... driving me even closer to the Docker ecosystem.
However, it seems that Swarmkit is a big casualty of the whole CE/EE (and now Moby) split. Docker EE (https://www.docker.com/enterprise-edition) still does not mention Swarmkit anywhere. In fact, there is NO top-level page on Docker's own site that actually mentions Swarmkit [1] and even Docker "Swarm-mode" is part of some second level documentation and help pages.
It makes me really worried about how you are seeing Swarm-mode/Swarmkit as part of the long term future of Docker Inc. You guys really dont talk about it - not even on twitter.
I'm assuming this is your handle as well (https://twitter.com/dockerswarm), which has not seen a tweet since Jan 2017. However, you guys do tweet a lot about "Docker Datacenter".
What's going on ?
[1] https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1...
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#125From 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.
thank you, makes sense now. why do they think we think that you can take an open source thing and make it closed source? All you can do is force them to buy commercial licenses by using a GPL on Moby. That is common use of GPL after the fact (see ExtJS history), but I'm not sure how they get around the viral aspect of GPL when they are using source from GPL project in their commercial offering. They'd have to be completely separate. If tomorrow the free "CE" product went away, what would happen? Imagine if we had to pay for the Java runtime or JDK.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That doesn't make it non-annoying. I am personally annoyed at the current state of the open source ecosystem where all the top open source projects are dominated by large tech co's. These large companies are developing open source as a strategic asset but most people have no idea and just think they're being altruistic. The reason this really sucks is because as a result, all the large projects backed by large compan…
> I am personally annoyed at the current state of the open source ecosystem where all the top open source projects are dominated by large tech co's.
It's fascinating how far we have come in the past 20 years. First the introduction of using opensource at work, then businesses starting to opensource things themselves, and here we are complaining that the top opensource projects are in fact backed by companies.
I understand your point, but it's also a luxury to be able to complain about this.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#127Not to be rude or anything but the people in charge of such changes need to take a class in change management.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby! I see this kind of cynicism / snark all the time on HN (especially when it comes to Docker) but is it really warranted? Surely it's the rare exception? I've never met senior people who couldn't understand the naming difference between the open source version of a thing and the enterprise-branded version…
I don't think your wrong. Someone being that entitled and ignorant must be the rare exception in 2017. Maybe I'm in a bubble too. The conversation usually goes like this with my folk: I get it, Moby is the OSS version and can be easily stood up and you don't see the need for extra cost. I'm glad you're trying to reduce expenses, but I don't mind paying for 24x7 Enterprise Support and it gives me piece of mind and pri…
By calling Moby the "OSS version" you are implying that Docker EE isn't open source. Honest question... is it true that Docker EE contains proprietary code, or did you mean to say "community version"?
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moby is the fedora like oss project and docker is the RHEL like commercial product. Purely a clever rebranding job. Timing is perfect - now that enterprise is adopting the technology, when you tell your boss you adopted moby he/she will say- but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby!
> but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby! I see this kind of cynicism / snark all the time on HN (especially when it comes to Docker) but is it really warranted? Surely it's the rare exception? I've never met senior people who couldn't understand the naming difference between the open source version of a thing and the enterprise-branded version…
I've known a CEO of a company not know what the difference between Centos and Redhat is. All his company's servers ran Centos.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a "im stupid and didnt follow news, here's why docker is being renamed to moby:"? Such as "docker reputation for security became too terrible" or whatever.
Why would you lead with a legitimate question and then finish with an outright insult?
How can software be insulted? Software doesn't have feelings.