Bargey or Tanky may have been a better name.
A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
251–260 of 321 posts
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's like Chromium, Google Chrome, and then imagine an enterprise version of Google Chrome?
Yes, that's a pretty good analogy. Except our "chromium" (Moby) actively encourages and facilitates creating completely different types of "browsers", not just Docker.
Well, chromium is also the base for CEF, node-webkit etc.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're separating the upstream open-source project , and the downstream open-source product under 2 different names, because a lot of people in the open-source community asked us to. It's a common concern in the free software community that having an open-source project too tightly coupled to a single company's product is a bad thing. Moving the upstream open-source project into Moby, and keeping the downstream open-s…
I for one think it's fantastic that you were open to modeling the project in this way. It seems to me that there is a lot of hostility thrown at Docker in this thread because people assumed the worst based on a comment in a pull request. This is a good thing for Docker and a good thing for the Docker community and containerization in general.
[deleted]
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#254Earlier 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…
Happily stopped using Docker when they began removing key features - even in the face of widespread user protest , https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/5001
Also their refusal to allow a feature to let a company change the default registry. Many enterprises need their own registry (and really want it to be the default) for a multitude of reasons... but they always just go "but we want everyone to have the same experience so we won't add this feature", even though there's been patches offered.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 is the OSS destroyer (see MySQL, Hudson, Java...)
To be fair, the open-source method wasn't exactly working out for Sun.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're separating the upstream open-source project , and the downstream open-source product under 2 different names, because a lot of people in the open-source community asked us to. It's a common concern in the free software community that having an open-source project too tightly coupled to a single company's product is a bad thing. Moving the upstream open-source project into Moby, and keeping the downstream open-s…
I for one think it's fantastic that you were open to modeling the project in this way. It seems to me that there is a lot of hostility thrown at Docker in this thread because people assumed the worst based on a comment in a pull request. This is a good thing for Docker and a good thing for the Docker community and containerization in general.
[deleted]
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#257Hi 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…
> 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
This.
I was a very early proponent of docker, and have been using it continuously since the very early versions. I read the release notes and most weeks I read the weekly email newsletter, and I still don't really have a clue where Docker is going, what its current status is (as far as how the various pieces fit together, etc) or what half the new features even do.
The docker team's communication is really poor, and their documentation seems even worse, unless I'm missing some oracle somewhere that fills in all the details that the actual documentation leaves out...
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those stats are wrong. The project has grown massively since 2014 and continues to grow. My guess is that you are looking at the stats for a single repo, when we have broken up the project (and its contribution flow) into many smaller repos. To answer your question: we think this move will accelerate the growth of the project, because it addresses the two most common concerns from contributors: 1) that the project is…
> that it's too tied to the Docker product and company That's good news. So you're setting up some sort of foundation so that Docker is no longer a gatekeeper for the upstream stuff? I didn't see that in the announcement.
They're essentially attempting to distinguish their commercial offerings from the upstream open-source project. They are cornering the name "Docker" for themselves since it has a lot of name recognition.
This has pros and cons. Red Hat and Mozilla both learned they had to be aggressive with trademarks, as people were distributing sabotaged builds under their product names.
That's why Firefox in Debian is called IceWeasel, for example; any Firefox build that incorporates external patches (or even one that is built with unofficial options, iirc) must not be called Firefox (barring a waiver from the Mozilla Foundation). This allows Mozilla to pursue people who are distributing contaminated builds of "Firefox".
Changing posture on the Docker trademark will make the arguments of Docker Inc. more persuasive should they find themselves needing to make use of the same sort of remedy. It will also make a separate upstream so that Docker will now be based off the "Moby Framework". If Docker Inc. becomes defunct, "Moby" will be an separate project that lost its primary sponsor, not a defunct project bearing the name of a dead company.
The cons are that it's probably a signal that Docker is going to continue working to monetize aggressively, potentially including spurious legal threats that limit the discoverability of competitors and vendors of alternate tooling. For example, it's possible that Kubernetes will no longer work "with Docker" but "with Moby", and the only orchestration for "Docker" will be docker-swarm.
It's also a potential signal that Docker plans to gear more of its work toward its souped-up closed-source distribution available to paying customers only.
The other pro is that Docker as a product totally sucks, so their alienating people in the community will drive users to other solutions that suck less. I keep hoping the containerization fad will go back in the bottle, and while unlikely, this diminishes faith in it since Docker == containers to a lot of people, so that's good.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#259More information can be found there: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 > Docker is transitioning all of its open source collaborations to the Moby project going forward. Should I understand that the core team wants to keep the brand "Docker" but use it in a commercial way, while Moby will be the underlying open source code? Is it Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora ? or Docker/Moby = Mongodb.com/Mongodb.org?
Terrible timing for Docker to do this. It may not be much of an underlying change, but the simple fact that https://github.com/docker/docker redirects to https://github.com/moby/moby is a product-destroying move, as Docker is now just managing to spread to a wider audience.
This move is going to confuse many users, and could entirely derail their growth. What the hell were they thinking, to execute this decision at such a critical point in time? Docker was already confusing enough to get started with, and now there's an additional barrier to entry just to understand what it all means? People right now at least understand what "Docker" is; now people are going to be redirected to something called "Moby", and many will give up out of confusion.
Really bad timing for such a move.
tldr; Am I even supposed to call it "Docker" now? Years of growing recognition of that name, thrown out the window.
Re: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I wish rkt would get some more momentum. In my opinion it's superior to Docker.
where's the Rocket Hub? Seriously how long is Docker Hub expected to float up there? Some are good quality, all the versions of tomcat for example. How long can such quality continue to exist?
rkt runs docker images and OCI images. https://coreos.com/rkt/docs/latest/running-docker-images.htm...