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

Post by moduspol » Sat, Jan 14, 2023, 10:38 PM UTC

justincormack wrote: post #109

moduspol wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kubernetes deprecated Docker support a few years back, so there will come a day that it may not be part of Docker Desktop. Rancher Desktop supports k3s with containerd out of the box, which has no announced deprecation. It's possible they plan to add containerd support to the built-in Kubernetes management of Docker Desktop once Docker is no longer supported, but I haven't heard about it. Beyond that, I'm not aware o…

(CTO of Docker here) Kubernetes moved Docker support out of the main repo, late last year. It is still supported and works, it is just an external repo now. As well as this Docker runs on containerd (which was originally a Docker project to work more closely with the Kubernetes project, now a CNCF project), and Docker Desktop now has a beta option to run the full containerd backend, including the image store, which w…

Post by chillfox » Sun, Jan 15, 2023, 3:21 AM UTC

doublepg23 wrote: post #298

chillfox wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting... My experience has been pretty much exactly the opposite, Docker just works flawlessly and it's the alternatives like podman and systemd that's caused me headaches and countless hours of wasted time.

I gave podman weeks of effort trying to get its “killer feature” to work properly (rootless containers). I couldn’t even justify the time for a hobby project. Instead, I just installed Docker and went on my way. IMO they need to improve documentation and drop the facade that it’s 1:1 Docker.

Post by ospider » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 6:20 AM UTC

_skel wrote: post #130

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…

I suspect the initial negative take on the license change was correct, and this is the dying gasp of the company. It's just taking longer than expected to replace Docker Desktop. But I am seeing a lot of progress on Podman and Rancher and a few others, and some of the larger tech companies are also building in-house replacements. A lot of the people who had to scramble to find a replacement are not happy about it. In…

Post by DonHopkins » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

isthisthingon99 wrote: post #72

fullsend wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great move by them to introduce a license requirement for 250+ seats but not waste resources enforcing it (as far as I can tell). Those who will pay, will pay. Those who won’t, will switch tools no matter how painful. They stayed relevant by keeping all their users, even those technically breaking the license, but also collected some cash.

I have a product that has zero reduction in functionality if your license or trial runs out, just constantly nags you when you do useful things with it. Eventually, the workers at the company insist on the company buying it. Sometimes takes 6 months hah.

Post by osdril » Tue, Jan 17, 2023, 12:33 PM UTC

mrjin wrote: post #46

There is a high cost of switching tech stack for companies, especially when availability of alternatives is unclear yet. So lots of companies will have no choice but pay for it. But for individuals it would be a complete different story. I've been playing with PodMan on linux in my home lab for a while now and I'm super happy with it, especially it doesn't need root in most of the cases.