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

281–290 of 321 posts

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

#281

Post by mdekkers »

vosper wrote: post #68
ernestbro wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moby is the fedora like oss project and docker is the RHEL like commercial product. Purely a clever rebranding job. Timing is perfect - now that enterprise is adopting the technology, when you tell your boss you adopted moby he/she will say- but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby!

> but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby! I see this kind of cynicism / snark all the time on HN (especially when it comes to Docker) but is it really warranted? Surely it's the rare exception? I've never met senior people who couldn't understand the naming difference between the open source version of a thing and the enterprise-branded version…

I've never met senior people who couldn't understand the naming difference between the open source version of a thing and the enterprise-branded version.

Here is an old saying: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" - neatly illustrating the issue. I have met _many_ senior people that don't understand these naming differences. They tend to be the bosses of the CEO and CTO's

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

#282

Post by jfoutz »

user5994461 wrote: post #139
ernestbro wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moby is the fedora like oss project and docker is the RHEL like commercial product. Purely a clever rebranding job. Timing is perfect - now that enterprise is adopting the technology, when you tell your boss you adopted moby he/she will say- but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby!

When you tell your boss you adopted moby, he's like "WTF is that?!". If you were already migrating to Docker, now you have to explain that the project name changed overnight without explanation, and it's hurting your credibility pretty bad. It's also gonna bring a lot of confusion onto everyone for a very long time.

Use the tried and true engineer response. Docker does many things because it has to be all things to all people. Docker is composed entirely from Moby, we're only composing the parts that matter to our organization. It'll be faster, use less resources. Even better, it reduces our attack surface because we're removing all that stuff less experienced teams need to muddle through their deployments.

The three points seem to be, cheaper, more secure, and the other guys are dumb.

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

#283

Post by chii »

elfchief wrote: post #257
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…

> 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…

> what half the new features even do

if you don't currently use any of these new features, and can't work out what they do, perhaps you really don't need them. Therefore, ignoring it and continuing on is the best cause of action. It's not docker team's responsibility to educate you!

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

#284

Post by mdekkers »

stephenr wrote: post #85
heeey wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite how it works. - Decision maker googles and finds there's this Docker company that will solve their problems. Heard good buzz about Docker in the news, how open it is, and how many companies use it. - Decision maker to engineer: "Hey can we use Docker software to solve problem X" - Engineer: "Sure, the software is actually called Moby now though" - Decision maker: "Meh, I don't care what it's called,…

Is that how VC companies "work" ? "Decision makers" make unilateral decisions about technology and "engineers" just say "yeah I guess" when asked about using new tech? What fucking problem does Docker solve that a "decision maker" can understand it enough to get a result telling them to use Docker, yet s/he can't understand the concept of "open core" software. Docker's status seems entirely driven by me-too cool kids…

Docker's status seems entirely driven by me-too cool kids cargo-culting the bejeezus out of it because they heard it can run their nodejs react app better.

:thumbsup:

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

#285

Post by mdekkers »

stephenr wrote: post #77

What is it with tech companies and fucking terrible name/branding analogies? Docker. Ok, works with containers I get... wait. Your logo is a WHALE with a bunch of shipping containers on it. You know that whales DISAPPEAR underwater for hours at a time, and shipping containers are NOT MEANT TO DO THAT? Ok ok maybe it was an honest mistake hey whats this new thing moby.. wait. Whales. Moby. Moby dick? Your project is n…

You know that whales DISAPPEAR underwater for hours at a time

Just like the stuff that relies on Docker

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

#286

Post by mdekkers »

user5994461 wrote: post #166
Khao wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A+ post. Funny rambling backed up by a crazy well detailed article and you get downvoted by the HN hive mind. Docker is the ...ahem... whale in the room that you shouldn't criticize ever!

Author of the article here! Just updated the titles to include moby. Maybe I should change the links as well, then it can get reposted on HN and reach the first page along the announcement :D

Love your articles. Thanks for taking the time and effort to write it up and put it online.

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

#287

Post by stephenr »

andrewguenther wrote: post #239
stephenr wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can software be insulted? Software doesn't have feelings.

This logic is the reason it sucks to be an open-source maintainer.

The original comment being discussed, suggested that Docker is terrible from a security point of view, which frankly I agree with.

Docker only got root privilege isolation (i.e. don't run every container as root on the host) a little over 12 months ago.

Their entire approach seems to be "build whatever buzzword batshit crazy idea cool kids want", with "hey is this shit stable, or even remotely secure?" way down the list of questions even considered during development.

Also: if someone is an OSS maintainer, and their response to bug reports is as bad as Dockers have been, sorry but they deserve to feel bad. The "you" I refer to below is a mythical OSS maintainer, not you specifically, @andrewguenther.

Maintaining software doesn't automatically remove any responsibilities you have to maintain the community. If there are huge issues with the software, you have two choices:

- acknowledge and identify a plan to solve the issues. In this case, assuming the issues are resolved in a timely fashion, I would expect people to remain courteous.

- treat the community as shit, ignore security concerns, and never fix fundamental bugs. In this instance, you should expect people to call your project out for the piece of shit it clearly is.

Let's also be clear here: we're not talking about some tin-pot project with 2 guys hacking away on their lunch breaks to find a cure for cancer, who are being told "this is crap".

Docker is developed by Docker Inc, a company that received nearly $170M in venture capital investment just in 2014-2015, and apparently makes several million a year in revenue.

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

#288

Post by elfchief »

chii wrote: post #283
elfchief wrote: post #257

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 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…

> what half the new features even do if you don't currently use any of these new features, and can't work out what they do, perhaps you really don't need them. Therefore, ignoring it and continuing on is the best cause of action. It's not docker team's responsibility to educate you!

Well, sure, you can make that assertion, but when you have someone that is a) already pretty familiar with the technology, b) continuously keeping track of the product for years, and c) goes out of their way to try to educate themselves... and that person still feels kind of lost... sure, you could put all the blame on them, but that seems a bit disingenuous.

(Or you could make the assertion that I'm just an idiot, but my career suggests otherwise.)

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

#289

Post by ibotty »

shykes wrote: post #262
alsadi wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell us more about trademark and branding guidelines. What do you allow a downstream implemented by others to be called without requiring trademark fees ex by parties similar to amazon (public cloud) or ovh (data center) or redhat/fedora (software vendor) and even nvidia (cuda docker-like) . For example fedora and firefox has strict trademark policy eventhough they are opensource. Can I call my tool moby-something?

For the Docker trademark, we will adopt guidelines similar to other open-source products , such as Ubuntu or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For Moby, there is no need for a strict trademark policy because Moby is a "meta-platform". In other words downstreams don't run Moby: they build their own specialized platform with moby . So they don't need to worry about the Moby trademark anymore than they need to worry about the t…

That still does not answer whether it's possible to name a project "moby-foo" for, say, an integration of moby with foo.

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

#290

Post by brango »

alpb wrote: post #205
wstrange wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indirectly I think Google does need Kubernetes to be successful. If they can drive adoption, it makes it much easier to move customers away from AWS and on to GCE.

Kubernetes benefits all parties. AWS can move customers away from GCE using Kubernetes, too. As a customer, you get more freedom and flexibility.

I'm surprised we still haven't seen a K8s solution from AWS yet. Their container engine looks OK, but K8s handles setting up internal LBs and has minikube for local development. The AWS app LB seems far behind.

I'm looking forward to them accepting defeat on this one and just natively supporting K8s like Google.

Post reply on HN