Changes to Docker Hub Autobuilds • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes to Docker Hub Autobuilds

#51

Post by zwass » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

mmbleh wrote: post #47

zwass wrote: post #36

Do folks here have ideas of what will become the best place to host public Docker container images? Between this and the earlier changes to rate limit pulls, Docker Hub no longer seems like the ideal venue for reputable public images. Should we look into implementing our own registry with AWS ECR or similar?

Interesting reaction. This could also be interpreted as making it _more_ reputable, by removing abuse and cruft, allowing engineering time to be focused on things that provide value to end users.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand the limits[1], but I want my customers to be able to pull the image as many times as they need. While this may help with the concern about quality of images, it still leaves the rate limiting unresolved.

[1] https://www.docker.com/increase-rate-limits

Re: Changes to Docker Hub Autobuilds

#52

Post by Molly666 » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

bentsku wrote: post #23

Jleagle wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By cryptocurrencies do you just mean BitCoin? Most new crypto's use proof of stake which doesn't use up GPUs. Not heard it blamed for using up hard drives before.

Chia coin is using Proof of Space. It is growing really fast and not a really good thing. Even cloud providers are reacting to it. See https://blog.scaleway.com/scaleway-and-chia/

For me only one question arises: this coin was initially called green, but can it be considered really eco-friiedly? Solid-state drives wear out very quickly, can this be considered eco-friendly? For me, a good example of a coin with a really low power consumption is Сrypton in this project https://utopia-ecosystem.org/, for mining you only need a computer and an Internet connection.

Re: Changes to Docker Hub Autobuilds

#53

Post by devmor » Fri, Jun 18, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

palijer wrote: post #16

devmor wrote: post #12

Normally, I would take this at face value. But from the company that just started charging users to allow them to skip upgrades, it feels like more nickel and dime tactics to me.

Not to me. A company had a problem (version spread) so they fixed it. Then the community asked for a feature, the company implemented it at a price point.

Or from the other end:

The users had a choice, so the company took it away.

The users wanted their choice back, so the company held it at ransom.