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

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#61

Post by throwaway9148 »

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.

Another great project my org is in the process of migrating to is Kraken. We’re migrating to that from after a bad experience with Harbor.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#62

Post by polski-g »

technofiend wrote: post #3

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.

I think its "kway" as well. It sounds more soothing.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#63

Post by smarterclayton »

throwaway9147 wrote: post #52
ecnahc515 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Openshift 4.x is open-source. 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…

We needed fedora coreos. OpenShift used RHEL CoreOS. It took longer for fedora coreos because we also wanted fedora coreos to be a sufficient replacement for ContainerLinux. That integration started passing CI with openshift today.

Readme updates and lots of this stuff need to be done - we left the readme at 3.11 because that was a coherent install (vs the more work in progress of fedora coreos).

Every bit of source code was there (and developed in the open), but it wasn’t all “pulled together”

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#64

Post by throwaway9147 »

throwaway9148 wrote: post #61
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.

Another great project my org is in the process of migrating to is Kraken. We’re migrating to that from after a bad experience with Harbor.

I don't have any experience with Harbor so can't comment on its architecture, my argument was purely about there being an existing, highly popular, open source solution backed by CNCF. Can you share more details about what's so bad about Harbor architecture?

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#65

Post by joshberkus »

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.

True, but it's been a goal to open source Quay from before Red Hat acquired CoreOS. The Quay team has always wanted to go community OSS, and it's been Red Hat's policy since acquisition to help them. There were just a whole bunch of prerequisites to iron out first.

And now users are in a much better place, because they have multiple choices of container registry, which will hopefully drive innovation.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#66

Post by freedomben »

znpy wrote: post #60
freedomben wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in hearing more analysis on why it is "worth noting." What are your thoughts?

It's probably because after Harbor got incorporated into CNCF its development kinda skyrocketed. 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 (=> h…

Thanks znpy. Can I ask what your orchestration stack looks like?

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#67

Post by oso2k »

freedomben wrote: post #24
SEJeff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once of the nicer features is that they offer an "encrypted password" where you login to quay and click the "generate encrypted password" option in your user preferences. Then instead of hardcoding your plaintext password into your docker config json, it puts the encrypted password that is only applicable to quay. For those that use LDAP authentication for this, it makes is a much smaller attack vector. The per-team…

Quay also integrates very well with OpenShift. It works fine stand-alone too, but if you're already using OpenShift it's worth looking into.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Red Hat Consulting focusing on OpenShift.

In fact, a version without the Container Scanning bits and some of the user management is the default internal registry in OpenShift 4.x.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#68

Post by freedomben »

organsnyder wrote: post #42
freedomben wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know what, after thinking this through I agree with you. Reversing position publicly is always risky, but you're right I'd probably just move to Ubuntu and if I need support I'd pay Canonical. I have lots of familiarity with Cent/RHEL which is why I'd prefer that, but I could gain that with Debian/et al without too much effort.

It's possible that the existence of CentOS is partially keeping RHEL viable. Maybe Fedora would be enough to do that, but overall CentOS probably contributes to RHELs demand, rather than detracting.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#69

Post by oso2k »

kapilvt wrote: post #29

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.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Red Hat Consulting focusing on OpenShift.

We've been discussing and working on this since the CoreOS acquisition. My good friend and Consulting colleague wrote a lot of the Operator code now used for installation.

Re: Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry

#70

Post by throwaway9147 »

smarterclayton wrote: post #63
throwaway9147 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Openshift 4.x is open-source. 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…

We needed fedora coreos. OpenShift used RHEL CoreOS. It took longer for fedora coreos because we also wanted fedora coreos to be a sufficient replacement for ContainerLinux. That integration started passing CI with openshift today. Readme updates and lots of this stuff need to be done - we left the readme at 3.11 because that was a coherent install (vs the more work in progress of fedora coreos). Every bit of source…

Thank you for clarification and for all your hard work.

I'm looking forward to OKD4 and I will be checking out Fedora CoreOS soon.

Post reply on HN