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

21–30 of 153 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#21

Post by TZubiri »

regularfry wrote: post #12
hobofan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a naturally vendor neutral tech so migrating should be trivial. So are the OCI standards that grew out of Docker and now are mostly used separate from (official) Docker. Is there even a vendor neutral VM image format?

Yeah, raw disk images. If you give me a block device, I can boot off it. Slightly less trivially, anything qemu-img handles should probably be considered at least in the neutral direction, if not actually neutral.

The standard would be BIOS/UEFI, and Partition schemas like GPT/MBR in that case.

However it's not always the case that you can just raw copy with dd some OS and expect it to function. OS integrate with hardware and installation can produce a unique binary OS specialized for that hardware. If you can magically dd an OS or swap an OS disk from machine to machine, then it's because of OS and kernel dev magic and can cause problems down the line.

In reality the best solution in my experience is to deploy an installation process, which usually is provided by the Host provider directly, and then run my own installation steps on userspace.

The fact that this process might be slower or involve human steps is more often a feature than a bug, and it's not something that can be solved by containers (someone has to fire up the host VMs when there's too many containers too). You can always use providers that automate new vm and even hardware deployments like AWS if you really need intra-day deployments.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#22

Post by akudha »

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?

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#23

Post by TZubiri »

sealeck wrote: post #8
TZubiri wrote: post #3

[flagged]

I don't think this is very helpful when it comes to the issue in question.

Well the issue in question is complaining about something that they are not paying, so my solution is not to use the thing they are not paying for instead of complaining about it to the wind.

Pretty basic stuff.

Just in general why would you want to depend on something that you are not paying for? Isn't that a huge vulnerability vector? There's some very few exceptions where we do this like with the linux kernel, maybe you do it with the OS, but adding a third layer is just getting into npm levels of carelessness. It's one thing to slap on free (as in beer) dependencies for convenience sake at the application level, but dammit have some respect for the OS layer.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#24

Post by concerndc1tizen »

sealeck wrote: post #11
concerndc1tizen wrote: post #6

If you don't like it, then why don't you use a different provider? If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff? Storage, compute, and traffic, isn't free. You've been the beneficiary of charity for years. Yes, the open source community has relied on this implicit charity as a parasite, by exploiting whatever free services they could. And now we're paying the price, as you sa…

This is really a question of framing. The other way you can look at it is: Docker has benefitted from a community adopting its products, and developing software that makes Docker more useful. As someone who sells Docker services, you benefit from a greater market size. It's like how WordPress have benefitted from people authoring plugins – even though wordpress.org has hosted them for "free", this has been good comme…

And once those services are fully developed, and the market is captured, do they still need to provide free services?

Isn't compatibility issues a major problem for alternative registries?

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#25

Post by surgical_fire »

concerndc1tizen wrote: post #6

If you don't like it, then why don't you use a different provider? If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff? Storage, compute, and traffic, isn't free. You've been the beneficiary of charity for years. Yes, the open source community has relied on this implicit charity as a parasite, by exploiting whatever free services they could. And now we're paying the price, as you sa…

> the open source community has relied on this implicit charity as a parasite

Very loaded language you use, when, typically, commercial software relies on Open Source software and community efforts as a parasite.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#26

Post by marginalia_nu »

bartread wrote: post #17
TZubiri wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or run no registry. Here's a port from a Dockerfile to just a vm: FROM Debian CMD apt-get install thing CMD curl blabla/install.sh Pretty much converts to: aws-cli ec2 launch-instance ssh user@server apt-get install thing ssh user@server curl blabla/install.sh In general, everytime you dispense of a high level abstraction, the solution is not to replicate the high level abstraction, but to build directly at a lower l…

Careful now: people will start accusing you of NIH. But I fully agree with you. Likely what you need is a tiny subset of the capabilities wrapped up by the higher level abstraction, so implement them directly. Over time you may find you need additional capabilities (although that's far from a given) and, if and when you do, you'll need to make decisions about whether to implement them directly, or wrap everything in…

If you wanna NIH you can just build your own docker. It's just an abstraction around some newer syscalls for process isolation. There's really not much magic to be found if you look into how it's done.

You can probably have a working prototype up in a weekend if you've got some systems programming experience.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#27

Post by baq »

XorNot wrote: post #9
baq wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also applies to any package manager repository you might be using. JFrog charges loads of money for Artifactory, btw

There are plenty of open source registry implementations though, including just running "distribution" from Docker. The format is not hard to implement either for basic storage.

The point is Artifactory has basically all popular (and some not very popular) repository format support built-in while supporting serious traffic, sharding, replication, etc. so you don't have to hunt for and then maintain anything. They've got a good tool, it's just expensive.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#28

Post by ilaksh »

I think they have a valid complaint about that open source program Docker is running and lack of response, but the overall tone seems like they are scolding Docker for not giving away it's services for free.

I have always felt that was strange how quickly people started taking Docker for granted, while simultaneously relying on them completely but also somehow dismissing their core utility as a trivial and unsophisticated layer or something.

It's like they never really got credit from most people on HN or are worthy of getting paid, even though most everyone uses their technology.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#29

Post by sherburt3 »

TZubiri wrote: post #7
ricardbejarano wrote: post #2

Run your own registry.

Or run no registry. Here's a port from a Dockerfile to just a vm: FROM Debian CMD apt-get install thing CMD curl blabla/install.sh Pretty much converts to: aws-cli ec2 launch-instance ssh user@server apt-get install thing ssh user@server curl blabla/install.sh In general, everytime you dispense of a high level abstraction, the solution is not to replicate the high level abstraction, but to build directly at a lower l…

Just look at how much shorter and nicer the docker example is compared to the VM example. Also first example runs locally on any computer with docker or podman or whatever installed, second example exclusively runs on AWS.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#30

Post by arccy »

TZubiri wrote: post #7
ricardbejarano wrote: post #2

Run your own registry.

Or run no registry. Here's a port from a Dockerfile to just a vm: FROM Debian CMD apt-get install thing CMD curl blabla/install.sh Pretty much converts to: aws-cli ec2 launch-instance ssh user@server apt-get install thing ssh user@server curl blabla/install.sh In general, everytime you dispense of a high level abstraction, the solution is not to replicate the high level abstraction, but to build directly at a lower l…

and who hosts that Debian image you're starting from....
Post reply on HN