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

Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

sacra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 334 posts

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#301

Post by paulmd »

paxys wrote: post #92
paulmd wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your question is confusing, docker-desktop is a gui utility. rancher-desktop is the equivalent to that. if you don't want a command line, docker itself (the underlying utility that the docker-desktop GUI drives) is free, in contrast to the GUI portion. Or kubernetes. so the direct answer is "brew install docker".

Nope, none of this is correct. Docker only runs on Linux. The core purpose of Docker Desktop (and similar tools) is to spin up a Linux VM under the hood and manage its lifecycle, route network calls, share volumes etc. You can do all of this yourself of course, but it will be a non-trivial amount of effort to set it up. "brew install docker" is just another way to install Docker Desktop. It does not run Docker native…

> "brew install docker" is just another way to install Docker Desktop.

No, it's not! that would be "brew install homebrew/cask/docker". As you can see here!

https://formulae.brew.sh/cask/docker

This is the docker CLI utility, ie "brew install docker" which is what I said:

https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/docker

Again, please actually look at the commands you are referencing before spreading misinformation, you are confidently incorrect and being rude about it.

Not only that but the information you are providing has legal implications because these two (completely different!) pieces of software have different licensing... docker-desktop is commercial license, not open-source!

You clearly do not understand the distinction here between the docker CLI utility and backend, and the docker GUI application, and it's very important here.

rancher-desktop is the equivalent to docker-desktop, ie the commercial portion, and docker itself can be used freely because it is (as I said) open source.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#302

Post by Nullabillity »

berniedurfee wrote: post #293
dzikimarian wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also you're hostage due to vendor lock, and you'll have to pay even if they raised a price or you had a bad quarter. That's huge risk, liability and often productivity gains are greatly overstated.

Vendor lock-in is a fallacy. Whether you buy it, borrow it or build it; you’re locked in to the chosen solution. Homegrown solutions are often harder to escape from than commercial or FOSS solutions. It’s sometimes easier to escape from one commercial solution to another as companies will provide migration tools and docs as part of their competitive strategy. You can mitigate solution lock-in through good architectur…

You're always locked in, so you need to make sure that you can adapt it as needed. Either because you already own it (homegrown) or because you're prepared to take ownership if needed (FOSS done right).

For commercial software (or FOSS-as-appliance) then you're stuck going along wherever your vendor wants to take you.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#303

Post by uberduper »

kdrag0n wrote: post #209
uberduper wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used a mac for quite some time and when I did, I used docker-machine. I recall from my use and from trying to help others that were using docker desktop, it was unusually difficult to make your ssh-agent available in a container. If that's still an issue, then please figure out a way to make that seamless.

I have seamless ssh agent forwarding for full Linux distros, so if you're running Docker from a Linux shell (like you would in WSL), then the usual way ( https://gist.github.com/d11wtq/8699521 ) should just work. Making it work when running Docker directly from macOS will be challenging, but I'll dig into it and see what's possible. Thanks for bringing it up!

Yea I use a linux workstation these days and wrote some tools that worked fine with docker on linux but was a nightmare to make work on any of the docker on mac solutions my coworkers were using.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#304

Post by berniedurfee »

Nullabillity wrote: post #302
berniedurfee wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vendor lock-in is a fallacy. Whether you buy it, borrow it or build it; you’re locked in to the chosen solution. Homegrown solutions are often harder to escape from than commercial or FOSS solutions. It’s sometimes easier to escape from one commercial solution to another as companies will provide migration tools and docs as part of their competitive strategy. You can mitigate solution lock-in through good architectur…

You're always locked in, so you need to make sure that you can adapt it as needed. Either because you already own it (homegrown) or because you're prepared to take ownership if needed (FOSS done right). For commercial software (or FOSS-as-appliance) then you're stuck going along wherever your vendor wants to take you.

FOSS projects change direction all the time as well. Python comes to mind. Solution lock-in is unavoidable. You can only try to contain it.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#305

Post by dzikimarian »

berniedurfee wrote: post #293
dzikimarian wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also you're hostage due to vendor lock, and you'll have to pay even if they raised a price or you had a bad quarter. That's huge risk, liability and often productivity gains are greatly overstated.

Vendor lock-in is a fallacy. Whether you buy it, borrow it or build it; you’re locked in to the chosen solution. Homegrown solutions are often harder to escape from than commercial or FOSS solutions. It’s sometimes easier to escape from one commercial solution to another as companies will provide migration tools and docs as part of their competitive strategy. You can mitigate solution lock-in through good architectur…

Of course there's a cost. It's just - in my experience - a lot smaller, when you aren't forced to pay subscription fee along the way.

Example - I was working with jira server for several years at pretty small company. As business grew, there were better and worse moments and sometimes there were more important costs, than another yearly support fee.

Atlassian decided to drop this model and tries to force everyone to the cloud. They say that migration will take 9+ months.

That means if they ever do such change again it will take full annual cost of the license to get rid of them, with no option to avoid it.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#306

Post by unity1001 »

jen20 wrote: post #146
unity1001 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Docker is also a convenient container registry. And its independent of ALL of those infrastructures so if i cancel any of them or move elsewhere, Im still good. So why should I not pay for Docker?

> independent of ALL of those infrastructures I want the container registry a local hop away from the thing using the images, not across the public internet…

That doesn't make a difference. With most of the stuff, images will only be pulled when they are not locally present or stale. Ie pull if not present in K8. So doesnt make any difference.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#307

Post by CoolCold »

oceanplexian wrote: post #129
paxys wrote: post #8

I remember everyone had written Docker off for dead when they announced their updated pricing plans, but they really made perfect sense, and I am happy to see the company recover. A large chunk of the tech world today relies on their products, but they were making next to nothing for it. It is definitely worth it for large companies to throw a few dollars their way considering the massive amount of value they are get…

> A large chunk of the tech world today relies on their products, but they were making next to nothing for it. Yes, but only because they ran a massive marketing campaign, and then achieved market penetration as a result of years of developer cargo-culting. Containers have been around years before Docker, docker added a ton of bloat and a repository. So what? None of the predecessors (Jails, OpenVZ, etc.) needed tens…

> Containers have been around years before Docker.. (Jails, OpenVZ, etc.)

that's exactly what they failed to deal with - Ops people were already fine & happy all the way with _existing_ solutions (they even know the difference between OpenVZ and Jails). Who was/is struggling is the Joe The Average Frontend developer and Project Managers hearing "sysadmins still setting up our Jails".

Or take from other angle - I'm on Windows, my colleague is on Mac, our grey beard devops guy is on Linux-Arch-Btw something - and we all can use the same Dockerfile and play around without not-giving-a-shit how it works under the hood and what kind of NAT/iptables/sysadmin-mumbo-jumbo is beneath. Total win!

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#308

Post by CoolCold »

kaashif wrote: post #212
ahepp wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker uses container functionality specific to the Linux kernel. So on Linux, you can install a relatively lightweight engine. But on MacOS or Windows, you need to install the entire "Docker Desktop" app, which secretly spins up a Linux VM in the background, and presents a (pretty poor) abstraction as if this is all running on the host machine.

On Windows, you don't really need to use Docker Desktop, I personally find it more convenient to run just plain old Docker in WSL. It's still a Linux VM, but you get more control over it. I never understood what the point of Docker Desktop was on Windows if WSL exists.

based on other comments here, there are cases when people like/need GUI part

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#309

Post by CoolCold »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #242
lopkeny12ko wrote: post #136

I'm surprised Docker Desktop drives so much revenue. As far as I know, it is a Mac and Windows-specific tool. Are FAANG and FAANG-like developers not using Linux machines locally despite deploying production software on Linux servers? Even for enterprise developers who use Mac and Windows, isn't 99% of day-to-day development on a Linux box you SSH into anyways? I've never really quite grasped the need for Docker Desk…

Why would I spend my time on Linux? Most code is platform independent. And why would most time be spend over SSH?

to let you master Vim like a God! ;)

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#310

Post by mmcnl »

cheriot wrote: post #191
roughly wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll do the math: $250k/yr/developer, so for 1 quarter, that's $62.5k, 3 developers for one quarter is $187.5k. Docker costs $10/mo, or $120/yr, so for 1000 developers, that's $120k/yr, or a payoff time of 1.5 years, assuming nobody ever has to touch anything ever again. Let's say our solution requires 1 developer-quarter per year to maintain - bugfixes, upgrades, deployments, etc. That's $62.5k/yr. That pushes o…

I've had more productivity loss than that from docker's bugs and CPU/battery drain. We don't use docker in prod so why use it for dev? I need a container not this power hungry daemon and annoying UI. As I type this my laptop is hot because docker needs to be reset and restarted.

One of the reasons I use Docker regardless of deployment is to verify it works on a machine that is not mine. Running it in Docker is a quick litmus test I have all made all the dependencies explicit. Also, a Dockerfile is potentially machine interpretable documentation on what you need to do to run the application. All of this has value before you even deploy anything.
Post reply on HN