51–60 of 106 posts
How to pronounce Quay: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2018/04/cay-key-quay.html Edit: I called it Kway myself and googled it after getting puzzled looks from my UK peers. The referenced article says "key" is the older pronunciation but either is acceptable.
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.
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 priori…
That's great to hear. My mistake then, last time I've opened http://github.com/openshift/origin, I saw OpenShift 3.11 even though latest release was 4.2 at the time. From that, and given the fact that all other RedHat products are upstream first, I've made a conclusion that OpenShift 4 is no longer open-source.
> 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.
What's the difference between OKD and OpenShift? Why does OKD use Fedora CoreOS, while OpenShift doesn't? Is it not the same code?
> 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.
Don't know Clayton or seen his email. I'm confused why would OKD use a different code than OpenShift. I though that the only difference between OKD and OpenShift would be the subscription.
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.
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 priori…
Lets be honest, nothing redhat gives out is actually free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you want to just test it, why not use a VritualBox VM or similar?
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…
High resource requirements mean that I need to spend more on compute, whether that means paying a cloud provider for a beefier instance, or spending more money on hardware and electricity.
Prerequisites: CPUs: Two or more virtual CPUs RAM: 4GB or more Why does a container registry need so many resources?
Unfortunately that seems to be common. Artifactory for example has similar requirements. Guessing that running full free text search and analysis on the artifacts are the main culprits. https://www.jfrog.com/confluence/plugins/servlet/mobile?cont...
> IRC: #quay on freenode.net They're note using Slack!
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
Prerequisites: CPUs: Two or more virtual CPUs RAM: 4GB or more Why does a container registry need so many resources?
Worth noting this is happening after the incorporation of VMware’s harbor registry into cncf. Harbor provides a solid enterprise registry with auth, Clair scanning, and a reasonable ux. https://goharbor.io/ Still, it’s great to see quay make it out into the open.
I'd be interested in hearing more analysis on why it is "worth noting." What are your thoughts?
It was in a mostly stagnant state, a release once in a while, and now it's going regular and strong.
The thing is, after things get the "CNCF" stamp they kinda go viral and become the "de facto" standard.
This means that Harbor would become the most usual way to run a private registry and thus Quay would lose ground (=> harder to sell).
Source: just implemented Harbor at work. Quay would probably have been better (probably "production ready") but Harbor was free & open source.