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

Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#41

Post by freedomben »

throwaway9147 wrote: post #39
freedomben wrote: post #2

Love this. After Red Hat acquired Ansible I thought for sure they would cave on their open source principles, but they didn't . They really believe in open source, and we are all the better as a world for it. Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat but have been a fan decades longer than I've worked there.

A competing product (Harbor) is already open-source and part of CNCF. Quay wouldn't have had any future if it was to stay proprietary. Regarding RedHat (or IBM) truly committing to open-source, I'll believe when OpenShift 4.x is open-sourced.

I think I'm a lot more benefit-of-the-doubt than you, but I agree completely with what you said.

Red Hat is very committed to putting the necessary infrastructure and organization in place around projects before they open source to make sure that the code isn't just available but can actually use community contributions. I don't have any inside info on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if OpenShift 4 is just waiting for that, or possibly to be in a stable enough state that the community can contribute.

Of course it's possible also that RH is keeping it closed for other reasons as well such as avoiding tipping their hand to competitors until their end goal is realized or something like that. I guess the point is I don't know, but given Red Hat's history of open sourcing even valuable acquisitions, I have faith that they will with OpenShift 4 as well.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#42

Post by organsnyder »

freedomben wrote: post #8
burtonator wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They believe in making money. The issue is that OSS is the only way to compete with the cloud. Quay would die without 3rd party contributions vs Amazon, Google, Microsoft.

Yes, any for-profit company has to believe in making money. However I think they could make a lot more by being stingy with their code. Ansible for example had a lot of paying customers that no longer had to shell out after it went open source. I (and many people/companies I know) would likely pay for RHEL if CentOS weren't a thing. There's plenty of opportunities for a cash grab if that were Red Hat's thing.

If CentOS didn't exist, that customer segment would jump to OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc. Same story for Ansible, etc.

The real money is with the organizations that feel the need (for many good and bad reasons) to pay millions of dollars for support, consulting, and the like. They don't care about the people that are looking to save a few grand on licenses.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#43

Post by ecnahc515 »

throwaway9147 wrote: post #39
freedomben wrote: post #2

Love this. After Red Hat acquired Ansible I thought for sure they would cave on their open source principles, but they didn't . They really believe in open source, and we are all the better as a world for it. Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat but have been a fan decades longer than I've worked there.

A competing product (Harbor) is already open-source and part of CNCF. Quay wouldn't have had any future if it was to stay proprietary. Regarding RedHat (or IBM) truly committing to open-source, I'll believe when OpenShift 4.x is open-sourced.

Openshift 4.x is open-source. I'm guessing what your speaking towards is the fact that there is no prebuilt distribution of it that doesn't require a subscription, ie: OKD, which is something being worked on. Clayon started off the conversation on this back in June: https://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshift-archives/users/...

But everything it's being built with is entirely FOSS. Making OKD happen is a high priority and is being worked on.

From my understanding, most of it's been blocked on Fedora CoreOS being at a state that it can be used for OKD and just putting resources onto setting up the automation for building everything for OKD.

Remember that Openshift 4.x fundamentally changed how Openshift does updates and that affects OKD a lot. Claytons email touches on this quite a bit.

Disclosure: I work at Red Hat, on projects related to Openshift.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#44

Post by freedomben »

gsmith2 wrote: post #40
jwildeboer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We happily make money without sacrificing our Open Source/Free Software principles. Does that bother you? (Disclaimer: Red Hatter since almost 15 years. I never doubted for a second that we would open source what we buy. Ansible, 3Scale, CoreOS, we have a long history of sticking to our principles)

Ansible was never Red Hat's to open source, the only open sourcing in that space is AWX, and it lacks release tags, working migrations or any meaningful community self-support that doesn't result in "you need to talk to us if you're doing this" on GitHub. It's a GPL'd code dump actively hostile to having a meaningful community develop around it

> the only open sourcing in that space is AWX

AWX isn't a trivial or unimportant product. For deployments of scale it's very important. It would also have been very easy to hoard the code and not release it, so the fact that RH did is impressive to me.

Having not tried to use open source AWX I'll take your word for the state of it. That saddens me greatly, and RH should do better. RH normally works pretty hard to avoid exactly that, but nobody is perfect (not making an excuse, just acknowledging failure).

Have you tried to contribute to AWX and had a bad experience?

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#45

Post by rodgerd »

SEJeff wrote: post #10
crb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "most correct" pronunciation of Quay is "key", as that link says, but the CoreOS team always pronounced it "kway". (I assume this has carried through to Red Hat.)

I asked Brandon Phillips (Then CoreOS CTO) on a call how they said it. He was quite frank it was pronounced "kway" and not "key", much to the chagrin of our Aussie coworker who still calls it "key". I've called it "kway" since.

Does he also visit the Florida Kways?

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#46

Post by ecnahc515 »

badrequest wrote: post #15

Prerequisites: CPUs: Two or more virtual CPUs RAM: 4GB or more Why does a container registry need so many resources?

First, this prereqs are about what you could get on a netbook in 2012 and on a modern day cell phone.

Second, I think it would help to know why you think a container registry wouldn't need a moderate amount of resources.

I don't necessarily disagree that the resources could be lower at the minimum (and in fact, I recall they are quite a bit lower than this when running it on your laptop without any load), but is this really anything unexpected?

It's written in Python so it's not going to be as efficient as Go or C++ but it certainly isn't Java levels of resources being requested here.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#47

Post by awalton »

rodgerd wrote: post #45
SEJeff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked Brandon Phillips (Then CoreOS CTO) on a call how they said it. He was quite frank it was pronounced "kway" and not "key", much to the chagrin of our Aussie coworker who still calls it "key". I've called it "kway" since.

Does he also visit the Florida Kways?

Florida's cay/quays/keys are just called Keys (presumably to short circuit this madness): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Keys

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#48

Post by throwaway9147 »

freedomben wrote: post #41
throwaway9147 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A competing product (Harbor) is already open-source and part of CNCF. Quay wouldn't have had any future if it was to stay proprietary. Regarding RedHat (or IBM) truly committing to open-source, I'll believe when OpenShift 4.x is open-sourced.

I think I'm a lot more benefit-of-the-doubt than you, but I agree completely with what you said. Red Hat is very committed to putting the necessary infrastructure and organization in place around projects before they open source to make sure that the code isn't just available but can actually use community contributions. I don't have any inside info on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if OpenShift 4 is just waiting…

> Red Hat is very committed to putting the necessary infrastructure and organization in place around projects before they open source to make sure that the code isn't just available but can actually use community contributions.

OpenShift went from open-source to closed-source. The infrastructure and organization was already in place.

> or possibly to be in a stable enough state that the community can contribute.

I would say that it's stable enough for all RedHat customers who pay for it.

> I guess the point is I don't know, but given Red Hat's history of open sourcing even valuable acquisitions, I have faith that they will with OpenShift 4 as well.

I have no doubts that old RedHat would do it, but IBM might have a different approach.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#49

Post by Havoc »

ecnahc515 wrote: post #46
badrequest wrote: post #15

Prerequisites: CPUs: Two or more virtual CPUs RAM: 4GB or more Why does a container registry need so many resources?

First, this prereqs are about what you could get on a netbook in 2012 and on a modern day cell phone. Second, I think it would help to know why you think a container registry wouldn't need a moderate amount of resources. I don't necessarily disagree that the resources could be lower at the minimum (and in fact, I recall they are quite a bit lower than this when running it on your laptop without any load), but is this…

>about what you could get on a netbook in 2012 and on a modern day cell phone.

Spinning up a cloud VM with 4GB for a year is a bit more than beer money though.

Reminds me of installing gitlab. Requirement 8GB...for a basic install. After a bunch of crashes (on a 8gb VM) I went with vanilla git.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#50

Post by Doubleslash »

tw04 wrote: post #38
jwildeboer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We happily make money without sacrificing our Open Source/Free Software principles. Does that bother you? (Disclaimer: Red Hatter since almost 15 years. I never doubted for a second that we would open source what we buy. Ansible, 3Scale, CoreOS, we have a long history of sticking to our principles)

I hate to break it to you, you are no longer a red hatter, you are an ibm’er and at the mercy of their board of directors. You’ll remain open source right up until the moment they decide that’s not the best way to utilize their recent acquisition. I hope for all of us that doesn’t happen anytime soon, but IBM acquired Redhat, not the other way around... plenty of sun folks learned that the hard way.

I bet the same has been said about VMware, GitHub and LinkedIn. They are all still doing pretty well today, last I checked. And they weren't acquisitions that required the acquiring company to get investors in to close the deal.
Post reply on HN