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

Docker Raises $23M

docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 281 posts

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#221

Post by nullserver »

gravypod wrote: post #208
411111111111111 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using k8s to deploy is easy, setting up a cluster with the 'new' admin command is also straightforward... Doing maintenance on the cluster isn't. Debugging routing issues with it isn't either, configuring a production worthy routing to begin with isn't easy either. it's only quick if you deploy weave-net and call it a day. I would strongly discourage anyone using k8s in production unless it's hosted or you have a ful…

Very few people who suggest using kubernetes are suggesting using kubespray or kubeadm. 99% of companies will want to just pay for a managed kubernetes cluster which, for all intents and purposes, is basically AWS ECS with more features and less vendor lockin. It should be also known that all "run your code on machines" platforms (like ECS) have similar issues. I remember using ECS pre-fargate and dealing with a lot…

So 1/4 to 3/4 of a million per year in salary.

Plus disrupting all the developers.

So far every large scale implementation i have seen has cost the developers a year in productivity.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#222

Post by jrm4 »

zapita wrote: post #32
jrm4 wrote: post #29

Can't help but see this as bad for everything; to me it feels like if "curl" or "ssh" raises $23M. I would love for these people who work on these great tools to make lots of money, but what this means is that "now Docker has to figure out how to squeeze money out of this particular (admittedly good) tool in the chain" -- and the tool usually suffers.

Docker was created by a VC-backed startup in 2013. So they have had an incentive to make money from the very start. At no point was Docker not financed by VC money.

That doesn't really address anything I said? Regardless of how it got started -- it simply feels like the type of tool that doesn't fit well with a high-profit model because it is so backend/developer oriented.

I've said it before, if you're trying to be profitable, that means there must be some part of it that is, "if you don't pay, you don't get it." What is that thing for Docker (a generally very open-sourcey thing), and will it be worth it?

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#223

Post by ncallaway »

KronisLV wrote: post #165
ncallaway wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? I appreciate the ability to allow "required" cookies, but reject all other cookies. I agree that I would absolutely prefer an HTTP header for cookie preferences instead of pop-ups. But the new cookie popups add some value to me, in letting me allow session authentication cookies, and reject all others. An outright block on all local cookies tends to break authenti…

Why not have a setting or two in Firefox/Chrome/Safari menu: - reject all cookies - allow only required cookies - allow all cookies And never to have to fall into 100s of different dark patterns by people who have spent dozens of hours coming up with solutions that would basically trick people in clicking whichever button is highlighted (usually the "accept all cookies" one) just so they can browse some content?

Well, that would require some kind of interoperability between the client and the website (like an HTTP header that sends cookie events).

I absolutely would prefer that to the world we have now. I'm all on board, you don't have to convince me it's a good idea.

But, that doesn't exist today. I do prefer having the stupid annoying popup that gives me the option to allow only required cookies to having no choice at all.

The new GDPR compliant cookie popups give me that option. It's a step up above not having the option at all.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#224

Post by detaro »

KronisLV wrote: post #165
ncallaway wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? I appreciate the ability to allow "required" cookies, but reject all other cookies. I agree that I would absolutely prefer an HTTP header for cookie preferences instead of pop-ups. But the new cookie popups add some value to me, in letting me allow session authentication cookies, and reject all others. An outright block on all local cookies tends to break authenti…

Why not have a setting or two in Firefox/Chrome/Safari menu: - reject all cookies - allow only required cookies - allow all cookies And never to have to fall into 100s of different dark patterns by people who have spent dozens of hours coming up with solutions that would basically trick people in clicking whichever button is highlighted (usually the "accept all cookies" one) just so they can browse some content?

See "do not track" for how that goes. Remember, people that do actively make the choice to design such a popup to trick you, they do not intend to use the solution that respects your interests best. And at the same time, it makes sense that legislation refrains from requiring specific technologies.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#226

Post by ForHackernews »

maccard wrote: post #160
ForHackernews wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it reductive? I do ask the same question for all those other systems, or the meta-question: "How is it that the bloated monstrosity of Kubernetes somehow became the de-facto container orchestration tool?" Is this just sysadmins buying themselves job security?

As someone who doesn't want to be a sysadmin, but wants to deploy applications to the cloud, the options are fairly limited. Kubernetes handles updates and scaling, networking between services, has managed offerings from all the major cloud providers, has an enormous ecosystem surrounding it, with many tools providing out of the box support for it. I could use docker swarm, or nomad, but I have to manage infrastructu…

Sure, at this point it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: K8s is almost the only game in town because...it's almost the only game in town.

But how did it get to that point? How did something so big and unwieldy that even billion-dollar cloud providers can't do upgrades on it properly (*cough* looking at you, EKS) become the go-to standard for running apps in containers?

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#227

Post by dchichkov »

thow-01187 wrote: post #216
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to differ. The jump from learning Docker (and containers generally) to learning Kubernetes is not “hard”. Sure it’s a different paradigm of application deployment but I’ve seen far too many posts on HN that completely undermine its value in the name of difficulty. You can use it if you’re not “at scale” completely fine and reap all the benefits as if you were. Idk it’s because people hate Google, so they hate K…

In my experience, adopting Kubernetes is seldom a well informed decision weighting the pros and the cons. Usually it's a stampede effect of higher-ups pushing for Kubernetes, because everyone else is, without really understanding what it entails. The truth is, Kubernetes is awesome, it brings many features to the table. But it also requires ~10% additional very expensive headcount, ~20% more tasks overall, and prolon…

To add to that, a step to use anything from Google is a step onto Google's infamous "deprecation treadmill". A rather frustrating lifestyle (unless you are inside Google and your code gets updated/maintained in the monorepo).

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#228

Post by dschuessler »

filleokus wrote: post #76

It feels like Docker (Inc) is becoming less and less "relevant" for each year that passes. At least from my perspective, they led the popularisation of containerisation and the whole cattle-not-pets approach of deploying apps. They created big and long lasting change in the industry. But they seem to have lost the production environment race to Kubernetes, at least for now. They are the biggest player in the dev-mach…

> They are the biggest player in the dev-machine market, but more alternatives are popping up making it even harder to monetise.

As someone who loves the feature set of Docker for development but grows increasingly disillusioned with its performance on Mac, would you mind elaborating what these alternatives are?

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#229

Post by [deleted] »

mvzvm wrote: post #173
systemvoltage wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry if it came across this way. The snarky comment highlights pretty well that we magically expect almost without a second thought that GitHub is free. Support SourceHut and pay for hosting git if people want to break away from ostensibly free services. Or pay for Github. SourceHut is also open source.

In what way is Github not free?

[deleted]

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#230

Post by PurpleFoxy »

oefrha wrote: post #67
bredren wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried GitHub packages?

Until GitHub Packages Docker Registry stops asking for authentication to pull public images, it might as well not exist to me. Have they resolved that?

GitLab registry allows anon pulls from public projects.
Post reply on HN