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

We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

linuxserver.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#141

Post by arp242 »

joshstrange wrote: post #75
tuyiown wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're underestimating how explicit rejection triggers awful behavior to seemingly way too many people, so one can be wary of releasing it, plus the fact that rejecting others is not easy for people, automating it seems dehumanizing, so the things stays as they are, so silence it is. I've been related several times about people that wanted explicit reasons of why they've been rejected, and ending up mad at th…

This 100%. I managed a hiring process last year (my first) and from the outset I wanted to make sure I let every applicant that we talked to know if we had decided to pass. It was a lot easier said/thought than done. That email is horrible to send. My stomach dropped out every time I hit “send”, for exactly the reasons you stated. I dreaded the replies which often included some kind of “Why?” question. I completely u…

I typically send real non-automated replies to everyone as well, even the bullshit applications or "wtf" interviews. Many don't reply (completely fine). Some are very grateful for a real human replying. Some send back a stream of abuse.

I agree that doing all of this well is quite time-consuming and stressful. I want to be reasonably honest in why I rejected someone, but also don't want to slag anyone off or make them feel bad. For some this is easy ("we're looking for a tech lead and you're just out of college"), for others not so much. Especially when they seem they might be okay, but you have a bunch of other candidates that just seem much better. Someone that bangs on about tabs vs. spaces would be "we're looking for someone with a more pragmatic approach", although phrasing that well can easily take up 10 minutes.

I generally just ignore challenges to my reply, unless there really was a misunderstanding on my part (which did happen once).

Still, I think it's worth it, including giving people the ability to reply to the rejection: most of them are positive and grateful – it's just that negative interactions register more strongly. Looking for a job is difficult, stressful, and depressing these days and I've been on the end of that too, and being a bit nice can really make a difference for some people.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#142

Post by arp242 »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #140
nickjj wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would much rather get an honest answer in any scenario, no matter what it is. There are people out there who would take that feedback and reflect on it in a positive way. How else can you improve or be mindful of things in the future if you don't even know what happened or what went wrong? I sort of feel like the people who don't give honest feedback or ghost aren't trying to protect anyone's feelings or are avoidi…

Do you actually though? A lot of people say they would rather get an honest answer but don't react very well in reality. > They themselves have something going on internally that bothers them when it comes to giving or receiving feedback. The idea that some people would judge them like this certainly wouldn't help people to try to be more honest and open, especially if such a person is demanding an "honest answer".

There's honest and there's too honest. I was once rejected with "you don't have the technical depth needed". I appreciate that's what they honestly felt, but sending it back like that was just too honest. Especially because I felt their technical screening process wasn't really all that brilliant (to put it mildly).

Something like "we're looking for someone with a different skill set" would still be reasonable honest, but also wouldn't make me feel terrible. The notion that you can fully asses someone's technical abilities from a one-hour interview is mistaken anyway. So an honest reply should take that in to account.

---

A second scenario is where I did a take-home code test thinghy. I went for the "simple but obviously correct and easy to implement approach". The performance for that seemed more than enough for the stated use case, and included some benchmarks and a bit of text to justify it. Performance wasn't mentioned in the task, but seems like the common sense thing to do. After a few weeks I got a one-line "doesn't meet expected performance" rejection. Well, you didn't mention what the "expected performance" is motherfucker. That's not what I sent back (I didn't reply at all), but what a fucked up way to evaluate and dismiss people.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#143

Post by [deleted] »

stronglikedan wrote: post #106
akudha wrote: post #22

I don’t understand why companies/people don’t respond. Apply for a job, they talk to you for months and stop suddenly. Go on multiple dates, then the person stops responding. Etc. A simple polite “we’re not moving forward with your application” email is better than silence. How hard can it be to show some basic decency and courtesy?

For personal matters, I prefer ghosting (receiving and giving). It's better for everyone in the long run. Just rip the bandaid off. The person has made up their mind, so discussing it just prolongs the inevitable. For business matters, it's just common courtesy to not leave someone hanging.

[deleted]

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#144

Post by Shorn »

joshstrange wrote: post #137
g-b-r wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as in personal relations, sending a final message rather than ghosting can be uncomfortable, but that's not an excuse not to do it. If/when you don't want to interact further, just say it (hopefully stating the reasons, such as that the hiring process is imperfect, but the company can't devote infinite resources to it); after you did that it's completely fine to ignore further inquiries.

This is exactly what I did. Everyone got an email no matter how uncomfortable, I would engage 1-2 emails past that then make it clear that I wasn't going to reply again.

How often would you say you got these negative interactions (anything other than a "thank you" or silence)?

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#145

Post by nickjj »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #140
nickjj wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would much rather get an honest answer in any scenario, no matter what it is. There are people out there who would take that feedback and reflect on it in a positive way. How else can you improve or be mindful of things in the future if you don't even know what happened or what went wrong? I sort of feel like the people who don't give honest feedback or ghost aren't trying to protect anyone's feelings or are avoidi…

Do you actually though? A lot of people say they would rather get an honest answer but don't react very well in reality. > They themselves have something going on internally that bothers them when it comes to giving or receiving feedback. The idea that some people would judge them like this certainly wouldn't help people to try to be more honest and open, especially if such a person is demanding an "honest answer".

> Do you actually though? A lot of people say they would rather get an honest answer but don't react very well in reality.

For me? Yes, in almost all cases, especially if we're talking about either getting no feedback vs. honest feedback. There's been a number of times where someone said X, I thought about it and either changed or at least internally made a note.

I will say it really depends on the context and situation. For example, if it involves someone you care about then sure an honest 5 minute conversation can help eliminate a lot of assumptions from both sides or uncover unknown tensions from the other side. On the flip side, if nothing gets said then nothing will change.

Being honest and transparent doesn't always mean literally saying what's on your mind too. It could be trying to achieve an outcome, such as with a code review. There's lots of ways to provide feedback in a way where you can get the other person to self-realize something without you needing to say it just by asking questions a certain way. This isn't an easy skill and it's something I'm always trying to improve. It applies outside of coding too.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#146

Post by nickjj »

arp242 wrote: post #142
Ferret7446 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually though? A lot of people say they would rather get an honest answer but don't react very well in reality. > They themselves have something going on internally that bothers them when it comes to giving or receiving feedback. The idea that some people would judge them like this certainly wouldn't help people to try to be more honest and open, especially if such a person is demanding an "honest answer".

There's honest and there's too honest. I was once rejected with "you don't have the technical depth needed". I appreciate that's what they honestly felt, but sending it back like that was just too honest. Especially because I felt their technical screening process wasn't really all that brilliant (to put it mildly). Something like "we're looking for someone with a different skill set" would still be reasonable honest…

> I was once rejected with "you don't have the technical depth needed". I appreciate that's what they honestly felt, but sending it back like that was just too honest.

Do you think if they were more specific it could have helped?

As someone who does like honesty, that type of response would bother me too because it doesn't feel like an honest reply. It feels like a blanket statement to quickly say something and move on.

If they said something like "when it came to thinking about and writing database queries, we felt like your solutions could have used more thought around performance optimizations and fundamental knowledge about joins".

I'd be really happy with a rejection like that because it's super specific. Now there's 2 action items I can do to improve, such as focusing on query tuning and getting better at joins. These are things you could search for and find tons of content / examples to improve on.

If you think about it like a loop, it's a loop that's complete. You did something poorly, you know what you did poorly, you can level up those specific skills and try again. The problem is when the feedback doesn't let you complete the loop.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#147

Post by arp242 »

nickjj wrote: post #146
arp242 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's honest and there's too honest. I was once rejected with "you don't have the technical depth needed". I appreciate that's what they honestly felt, but sending it back like that was just too honest. Especially because I felt their technical screening process wasn't really all that brilliant (to put it mildly). Something like "we're looking for someone with a different skill set" would still be reasonable honest…

> I was once rejected with "you don't have the technical depth needed". I appreciate that's what they honestly felt, but sending it back like that was just too honest. Do you think if they were more specific it could have helped? As someone who does like honesty, that type of response would bother me too because it doesn't feel like an honest reply. It feels like a blanket statement to quickly say something and move…

> Do you think if they were more specific it could have helped?

To be honest I think it was just a "bad vibe" or whatever you want to call it, and/or didn't meet an exactly pre-defined approach they wanted during the "systems design" interview which was quite badly done IMHO, and felt like stumbling around trying to find the answer he was looking for while he was going out of the way to drip-feed me information.

But who knows...

But yes, I agree with you: it's non-actionable feedback. And also came across as quite personal (that is: the difference with "you're a bad coder" vs. "this is bad code").

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#148

Post by TZubiri »

orf wrote: post #138
TZubiri wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Containers are not virtualisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software) >Docker is a set of platform as a service (PaaS) products that use OS-level virtualization to deliver software in packages called containers.[5] https://lwn.net/Articles/179361/ >"Virtualization" is the act of making a set of processes believe that it has a dedicated system to itself. >Full virtualization and paravirtualization are no…

> At least we do agree on one thing, there is one and only one subpar engineer among us. Indeed, the one who thinks containers are nothing but Docker. Or better yet, the one who cites a PDF from 2000 or an article from 2006, both before ec2 even launched, to say virtualization is synonymous with containers as if the meaning hasn’t shifted since then… Or, at the very least, the one who thinks “ssh apt-get install” is…

Your reading comprehension might be quite bad

>Indeed, the one who thinks containers are nothing but Docker.

I just cited papers talking about jails, zones and chroot..

>to say virtualization is synonymous with containers

I said containers are virtualization, not that virtualization is synonymous with containers. That is container ∈ virtualization, not container = virtualization.

No offense but that's a highschool level reading comprehension error right there.

>Or better yet, the one who cites a PDF from 2000 or an article from 2006,

At least I cited stuff.

Go ahead and submit something to wikipedia with sources if you think containers are no longer virtualization.

Otherwise I'm out.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#149

Post by 8organicbits »

robertlagrant wrote: post #74
8organicbits wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> none of them invented Docker I think that depends on what you mean by docker. Lots of similar things existed before, just less formalized and less centralized.

But there's a reason why Docker was so successful - a single file that could define a deployment and tooling to build it into a runnable artefact was incredibly useful. From the future tech useful. If you can name these other similar solutions created by charities I can probably me more specific.

I think of Docker as a well executed and well-timed formalization of existing tools. It put a name to a collection of engineering concepts. This is why people can build Docker in N lines of shell script. Jails existed in the late 90s. IaC had multiple options before Docker.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#150

Post by pas »

joshstrange wrote: post #75
tuyiown wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're underestimating how explicit rejection triggers awful behavior to seemingly way too many people, so one can be wary of releasing it, plus the fact that rejecting others is not easy for people, automating it seems dehumanizing, so the things stays as they are, so silence it is. I've been related several times about people that wanted explicit reasons of why they've been rejected, and ending up mad at th…

This 100%. I managed a hiring process last year (my first) and from the outset I wanted to make sure I let every applicant that we talked to know if we had decided to pass. It was a lot easier said/thought than done. That email is horrible to send. My stomach dropped out every time I hit “send”, for exactly the reasons you stated. I dreaded the replies which often included some kind of “Why?” question. I completely u…

> How do you tell someone “I’m sorry, you’re too junior, ..."

What's wrong with this? :0

Post reply on HN