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

A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 321 posts

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#191

Post by alexk »

sandGorgon wrote: post #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 rotati…

> 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.

Can you please refer to this particular discussion and link to it here, I would like to make sure that this indeed is what happened.

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#192

Post by problems »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #185
ilovecaching wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to name names, if it's not obvious go watch the last general session keynote. Edit: See my response below

Well, guess I'll do the detective work. Here's a link to the Docker blog that has the two keynotes: https://blog.docker.com/2016/06/dockercon-general-session-vi... Guest speakers for the last (second) general keynote were: -Guest speaker #1: Docker and Microsoft demo by Mark Russinovich, CTO Microsoft Azure -Guest speaker #2: Docker at ADP by Keith Fulton, CTO, ADP And just somehow I sense that the parent poster isn'…

> (What makes the objection doubly silly is that Mark Russinovich isn't the usual corporate drone one might expect. He's the guy who did the Sysinternals tools and several editions of the "Windows Internals" reference on the architecture of the Windows OS.)

From Sysinternals to the Azure CTO... what a weird transition. That guy has had an interesting career.

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#193

Post by mdekkers »

ilovecaching wrote: post #153
shykes wrote: post #75

Hi all, Docker founder here. It appears that the explanation in the pull request is not very clear. Sorry about that. We didn't expect the PR to be the first thing people read: there is a new website at mobyproject.org. Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load, and I can't update the PR text to clarify. Here is an updated version with some clarifications: Docker is transitioning all of its open source collab…

Do you know that keeping your users in a constant state of confusion is not the way to convince them that you're building a stable and secure product? Also, isn't it kind of ironic that you built your company on OSS and then invited a well known destroyer of OSS onto your main stage? Plus, I want my DockerCon money back. What exactly did you announce besides multi-stage builds at the general sessions that is actually…

Well said. I don't recall the guy ever engaging in any answers that don't give him the opportunity to spout more marketing rubbish though.

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#194

Post by frik »

shykes wrote: post #75

Hi all, Docker founder here. It appears that the explanation in the pull request is not very clear. Sorry about that. We didn't expect the PR to be the first thing people read: there is a new website at mobyproject.org. Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load, and I can't update the PR text to clarify. Here is an updated version with some clarifications: Docker is transitioning all of its open source collab…

So all books about Docker are now outdated.

What will happen with hub.docker.com? Is store.docker.com the replacement? Or will both coexist? Which one will be hosted on mobyproject.org ?

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#195

Post by notheguyouthink »

nobodyorother wrote: post #152
shykes wrote: post #75

Hi all, Docker founder here. It appears that the explanation in the pull request is not very clear. Sorry about that. We didn't expect the PR to be the first thing people read: there is a new website at mobyproject.org. Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load, and I can't update the PR text to clarify. Here is an updated version with some clarifications: Docker is transitioning all of its open source collab…

> Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load What the flip did you do? They held off the Great Firewall! /impressed

Yea that threw me off too, what is going on o_O

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#196

Post by thockingoog »

alexk wrote: post #191
sandGorgon wrote: post #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 rotati…

> 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. Can you please refer to this particular discussion and link to it here, I would like to make sure that this indeed is what happened.

I don;t think that is really what happened. :) As part of the runtime abstraction, kubernetes must necessarily decide how to handle stdout/stderr logs. Not having a decision for something at a given point in time is not exactly a bad thing.

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#197

Post by crb »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #170
ilovecaching wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know that keeping your users in a constant state of confusion is not the way to convince them that you're building a stable and secure product? Also, isn't it kind of ironic that you built your company on OSS and then invited a well known destroyer of OSS onto your main stage? Plus, I want my DockerCon money back. What exactly did you announce besides multi-stage builds at the general sessions that is actually…

> Also, isn't it kind of ironic that you built your company on OSS and then invited a well known destroyer of OSS onto your main stage? I think I missed this; who are you referring to? I scrolled through the list and didn't recognize anyone that I would consider a "destroyer of OSS" so I'm not sure if I missed something, if you're just exaggerating or a little bit of both.

Oracle?

https://blog.docker.com/2017/04/oracle-database-dev-tools-in...

(The other posted list talking about Microsoft is from 2016)

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#198

Post by puja108 »

kordless wrote: post #179
diminoten wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea isn't cynical, it's branding. The whole point of creating a brand like Moby is to trigger conversations about what level of service you're getting when you say you're using "Moby" vs. "Docker". The CTO hears they're using "Moby", which for the first time may make the CTO realize that some of the infrastructure for his business is relying on unsupported technology (or maybe he intuitively realized it but now…

The object "Docker" has been in dissonance for quite a while now, both by the company's perspective and the consumer's perspective. I think rationalizing it as a "brand" move is a bit simplistic. It is a FACT that individuals are unable to use the term "Docker" on anything they would like to create and share with others. This has been enforced with takedown notices and legal entities getting involved in "protecting"…

Great comment Kord! kudos

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#199

Post by shykes »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #195
nobodyorother wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load What the flip did you do? They held off the Great Firewall! /impressed

Yea that threw me off too, what is going on o_O

I think it's a combination of moving one of the most active repositories on github, opening a very high-profile pull request, and having that pull request linked from the #1 story on Hacker News.

Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

#200

Post by shykes »

frik wrote: post #194
shykes wrote: post #75

Hi all, Docker founder here. It appears that the explanation in the pull request is not very clear. Sorry about that. We didn't expect the PR to be the first thing people read: there is a new website at mobyproject.org. Unfortunately Github is struggling under the load, and I can't update the PR text to clarify. Here is an updated version with some clarifications: Docker is transitioning all of its open source collab…

So all books about Docker are now outdated. What will happen with hub.docker.com? Is store.docker.com the replacement? Or will both coexist? Which one will be hosted on mobyproject.org ?

Moby is not a replacement for Docker. It's a new upstream project for developing and assembling Docker.

If you're a Docker user, nothing changes for you. Docker Hub and Docker Store are also unaffected.

Post reply on HN