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

Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

blog.alexellis.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 764 posts

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#651

Post by MichaelZuo »

zamnos wrote: post #488
stingraycharles wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue that only the person who is in control could say “for certain”, and as such, that is the implicit differentiator between those two phrases.

I mean yeah okay fine the phrase is then "according to your understanding of the rules set forth by Docker, as of today's edit of the linked PDF (2023-03-15), and in accordance with the current (2023-03-15) configuration of the three images, `alpine`, `node`, and `golang`; are those three images covered by the open source program and will continue to be accessible or will those images cease to be accessible by non-pa…

There's no need to post a combative reply. The parent is just pointing out the dictionary meaning of 'certain'.

You could instead set the bar at a 'high likelihood' instead of 'certain'.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#652

Post by yencabulator »

imdsm wrote: post #370
Sebb767 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it though? Podman is more well liked (no daemon / non-root) and Kubernetes doesn't have direct support for it any more. I've used "Docker" as in "containerization", since they are often used synonymously and the grandparents intent was definitely to criticize the latter. Docker itself will quite likely stay around as a name, but I have no faith in the company.

The company has never been good though. The technology was great, but they never found a way to monetise it properly, and their whole approach to outreach, community, and developer experience was terrible. Their support, non-existent. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that, given the ubiquity of their product, I can't think of a worse way a company could have performed. It's been about 10 years now since it really too…

> The technology was great

Nah, you just didn't look carefully enough. Docker the technology has been recurring amateur hour of screwups. For example, they hashed the downloaded data but forgot to compare the hash to expected value.

The only thing "great" about Docker was the rough idea of easy-to-transport filesystem images that could run just about anywhere, and the fact that they managed to make that kind of thinking mainstream.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#653

Post by jljljl »

jon-wood wrote: post #116
pmarreck wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> worlds better than the old ways of managing dependencies and making sure everyone on a project is aligned on what versions of things are installed. And Nix is worlds better than even this . Imagine!

I’m yet to be entirely sold on that, mostly because I think Nix the language isn’t anywhere near as accessible as Dockerfiles, but I’ll be the first one cheering if Nix does manage to take over.

You might be interested in Devbox (http://jetpack.io/devbox)! We built Devbox because we were frustrated with our Docker based dev environments, and our goal is to provide the power of Nix with a more accessible interface (similar to yarn or other package managers).

We're open source and rapidly adding features, you can check us out on Github at https://github.com/jetpack-io/devbox

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#654

Post by goodpoint »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #552
college_physics wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't comment specifically on this or that "dying company", but it is a bit disappointing that after, how many, four decades of open source? and the obvious utility of that paradigm, it still seems a major challenge to build sustainable open source ecosystems. This means we can't really move on and imagine grander things that might build on top of each other. Its not clear if that is due to: i) competition from propr…

With lots of open source licenses, there is no copyleft. Without copyleft, for profit companies can simply take the hard work, add a little on top, make it proprietary, and sell it. Customer mentality is to use the most comfortable thing, without paying attention on whom they depend, often choosing the proprietary offer, because of feature X. There are healthy ecosystems, even some partially replacing docker, some wi…

> Without copyleft, for profit companies can simply take the hard work, add a little on top, make it proprietary, and sell it.

That's it. Pushover licenses are not helping at all.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#655

Post by vetrom »

Aperocky wrote: post #610
stuff4ben wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally just ask it to do it. I've been asking ChatGPT just now to write me a bunch of bash scripts I've procrastinated doing. Holy crap that thing is pretty awesome!

ChatGPT has learned no less than 100000 snippets about `rm -r *`, and how to trick people into accidentally using it.

`rm -r` is a great starter. Real conniseurs go for `wipe -fcrsQ1 /dev`.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#656

Post by osigurdson »

yencabulator wrote: post #652
imdsm wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company has never been good though. The technology was great, but they never found a way to monetise it properly, and their whole approach to outreach, community, and developer experience was terrible. Their support, non-existent. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that, given the ubiquity of their product, I can't think of a worse way a company could have performed. It's been about 10 years now since it really too…

> The technology was great Nah, you just didn't look carefully enough. Docker the technology has been recurring amateur hour of screwups. For example, they hashed the downloaded data but forgot to compare the hash to expected value. The only thing "great" about Docker was the rough idea of easy-to-transport filesystem images that could run just about anywhere, and the fact that they managed to make that kind of think…

Docker either came up or popularized the idea that completely dominates how almost all services work today. That is something imo. It is obvious in hindsight maybe but not in 2012.

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#657

Post by ParetoOptimal »

vilunov wrote: post #288
CGamesPlay wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What state are you thinking of? The containers are ephemeral and the dependencies are well specified in it. You can complain about shipping Ubuntu, but the rest of this doesn’t make sense.

Makes perfect sense to me, sadly. The dependencies are specified in excessively, that's why everyone is shipping Ubuntu. This is caused by and further facilitates the development style of "do not track what we use, just ship everything". Also, the dependencies are specified in container images, which themselves are derivative artifacts and not the original source code, and these dependencies often change in different…

> Most importantly, nix is incredibly invasive in development process, adopting it requires heavy time investments.

Typically yes, but Nix actually allows you to be less pure to save time and pick your most economic point on the reproducibility continuum.

I'm fairly sure there was an article about this... ah here it is:

https://www.haskellforall.com/2022/08/incrementally-package-...

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#658

Post by ParetoOptimal »

at_a_remove wrote: post #419
hospitalJail wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The dev model of "we've lost track of our dependencies so ship Ubuntu and a load of state" never sat well. This was my first thought when I learned of Docker. I have a hard time calling myself an 'Engineer' when there are so many unknowns, that I'm merely playing around until something works. I insist on being called a Programmer. It pays better than 'real' engineering. Why not embrace it? (Credit toward safety crit…

I remember back around 2009, our org had this horrible open source program, which shall not be named, foisted upon us by an excitable bloke who had heard wondrous things from the university where it had been developed. Well, we had a bitch of a time getting it running. Instructions and build scripts were minimal. We thrashed around. I noted to someone that this felt less like a product and more like a website and set…

> "Yes, we threw our hands in the air and stopped trying to make a decent installation system."

I mean what do you expect, it goes along so nicely with "Yes, we threw our hands in the air and stopped trying to architect coherent software systems."

Re: Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to know

#660

Post by jacooper »

jacooper wrote: post #591
blcknight wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can I use Quay for free? > Yes! We offer unlimited storage and serving of public repositories. We strongly believe in the open source community and will do what we can to help! It’s completely free for public repositories.

Wow! Didn't notice at all since its at then of the page.

The end*
Post reply on HN