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

We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

linuxserver.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#71

Post by larntz »

8organicbits wrote: post #52
robertlagrant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My suggestion is therefore that we need independent solutions, that are fully funded as a charity, and stop relying on freemium services from corporations that fundamentally don't care about the public good. We had that already, but none of them invented Docker. > If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff? They seem happy to pay; they were complaining (validly) about the…

> none of them invented Docker I think that depends on what you mean by docker. Lots of similar things existed before, just less formalized and less centralized.

Which makes me wonder, would docker have gained traction if they didn't offer free registry services?

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#72

Post by TZubiri »

jaapz wrote: post #45
bananapub wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what a profoundly useless comment. "why don't you do something else, unrelated, which doesn't solve any of the problems you have?" is absolutely the Ur-HN Reply.

Yeah it sounds like something someone would say who hasn't actually used docker (or containerization at all) much but has decided it sucks anyway.

Started using it like 7 years ago.

Since virtualization has so many usecases, it's not possible to list all of the ways to do the thing without containerization (either with traditional virtualization or no virtualization at all), but be assured, you can do it, there's nothing special about containers, it's just another way to do things that you can choose not to use at all.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#73

Post by TZubiri »

the-grump wrote: post #37
TZubiri wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or run no registry. Here's a port from a Dockerfile to just a vm: FROM Debian CMD apt-get install thing CMD curl blabla/install.sh Pretty much converts to: aws-cli ec2 launch-instance ssh user@server apt-get install thing ssh user@server curl blabla/install.sh In general, everytime you dispense of a high level abstraction, the solution is not to replicate the high level abstraction, but to build directly at a lower l…

Yeah, no. I'm not only using containers to deploy my VPSes. Thank you for trying. P.S. at least use something declarative and provider-agnostic like terraform.

What else are you using containers for?

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#74

Post by robertlagrant »

8organicbits wrote: post #52
robertlagrant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My suggestion is therefore that we need independent solutions, that are fully funded as a charity, and stop relying on freemium services from corporations that fundamentally don't care about the public good. We had that already, but none of them invented Docker. > If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff? They seem happy to pay; they were complaining (validly) about the…

> none of them invented Docker I think that depends on what you mean by docker. Lots of similar things existed before, just less formalized and less centralized.

But there's a reason why Docker was so successful - a single file that could define a deployment and tooling to build it into a runnable artefact was incredibly useful. From the future tech useful.

If you can name these other similar solutions created by charities I can probably me more specific.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#75

Post by joshstrange »

tuyiown wrote: post #36
akudha wrote: post #22

I don’t understand why companies/people don’t respond. Apply for a job, they talk to you for months and stop suddenly. Go on multiple dates, then the person stops responding. Etc. A simple polite “we’re not moving forward with your application” email is better than silence. How hard can it be to show some basic decency and courtesy?

I think you're underestimating how explicit rejection triggers awful behavior to seemingly way too many people, so one can be wary of releasing it, plus the fact that rejecting others is not easy for people, automating it seems dehumanizing, so the things stays as they are, so silence it is. I've been related several times about people that wanted explicit reasons of why they've been rejected, and ending up mad at th…

This 100%.

I managed a hiring process last year (my first) and from the outset I wanted to make sure I let every applicant that we talked to know if we had decided to pass. It was a lot easier said/thought than done.

That email is horrible to send. My stomach dropped out every time I hit “send”, for exactly the reasons you stated. I dreaded the replies which often included some kind of “Why?” question.

I completely understand where the candidates are coming from. They want to know what they did wrong and how they can improve. On the surface this seems like an easy thing to do, but in my experience, it’s more like opening a can of worms. How do you tell someone “I’m sorry, you’re too junior, try again in a few years” or “your entire personality was off-putting/rude” or “you spent an inordinate amount of time in the interview tying to convince me I was wrong about tabs vs spaces and even sent me a follow up email citing more reasons” or “You told me you worked with PHP 6 when I asked you what version you had used” [0], or “you couldn’t remember if you used Angular 1 or 2+” [1], or “you told me you had a great memory then proceeded to say ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I don’t remember’ to 90% of my questions”…. The list goes on

When sending a rejection letter the best case scenario is that they say “thank you” and move on (or don’t reply at all). Worst case scenario, they start asking follow-up questions which I feel obligated to respond to, they get irate, and/or they attempt some kind of bargaining/arguing. I’m not going to say I’d never do any of these things myself (however unproductive) but it shocks me that some people think they can change your mind by arguing about why you passed on them.

It’s all very uncomfortable and feels like you are navigating a field of land mines.

[0] PHP 6 never was released, it went from 5->7, though you can find books on “PHP 6” because they were printed before it was clear the version was going to be skipped.

[1] Angular 1 vs 2+ is essentially a completely different framework. Anyone working in web tech should be aware of that fact.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#76

Post by sealeck »

TZubiri wrote: post #33
sealeck wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really a question of framing. The other way you can look at it is: Docker has benefitted from a community adopting its products, and developing software that makes Docker more useful. As someone who sells Docker services, you benefit from a greater market size. It's like how WordPress have benefitted from people authoring plugins – even though wordpress.org has hosted them for "free", this has been good comme…

"Docker has benefitted from a community adopting its products," It takes a whole lot of mental gymnastics to argue that a provider of free services is actually the one benefitting from that interaction, and not the other way around. Go ahead and build your systems on free dependencies like WordPress and Debian, but just get real and don't pretend that you are better than professionals that build business relationship…

Would you say Github benefit from open source developers using it? (And if not, why do you think they provide the service?)

These people are maintaining free Docker images for Docker users to use. They're not charging for this, and Docker benefit massively from these images being available!

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#77

Post by Joker_vD »

TZubiri wrote: post #68
Joker_vD wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is difference between paying for software and paying for the development of software, you know.

Yeah sure, but there's trickle down effects. What incentive would an employer have to hire you to build software, if they can't then go and sell the software that you built for profit.

My employer themself uses the software I write for them plus they provide access to its functionality as a service. This model have been bringing in enough profit for the last 10 years, apparently, to justify the steady expansion of the number of programmers employed.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#78

Post by bayindirh »

ilaksh wrote: post #28

I think they have a valid complaint about that open source program Docker is running and lack of response, but the overall tone seems like they are scolding Docker for not giving away it's services for free. I have always felt that was strange how quickly people started taking Docker for granted, while simultaneously relying on them completely but also somehow dismissing their core utility as a trivial and unsophisti…

FWIW, I have a personal Docker license, but I avoid containers where I can (because containerizing everything by default has its own set of problems). I use containers as "very fat, stateless" binaries which are run when I need to do something (generate a webpage, take backups, etc.).

People got Docker for granted because startups and modern sysadmins absolutely despised installing software on physical or VM servers. On tech side, Vagrant was making VMs easier, plus BSD had jails, and Linux needed something similar. So they found a legit gap in the stack, and timed it well.

Who wants to spend 3 hours to install a service while they can make it appear out of thin air in 40 seconds and deal with the shortcomings and consequences later, or containerize an application, disregard hard requirements and tell "just add an X container in front" (I'm not telling that this is good, BTW).

So Docker spread like wildfire and graduated to invisible/boring tech in 3 months straight. Then when the people demanded money from developers for what they built for them, people grabbed the forks, or created literal forks of the software. I support the latter approach, not the former one.

However, if they advertise a DSOS program, they should do what it entails. Be transparent, fair and open about it.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#79

Post by dangus »

Docker lists a phone number on their website, perhaps you can try that?

Instead of all the snide remarks I’ll offer another possible solution:

Contact sales for Docker Business, first state your interest in the business enterprise plan, maybe even make some statements about how it would benefit you, but also during the sales/discovery/demo process note the problems you’re having as a free organization and how they have to be resolved before you can move forward.

Once the sales team prods the right people to fix your problem, continue wasting their time a little more as punishment and then tell them sorry, we went with another vendor.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#80

Post by eproxus »

ilaksh wrote: post #28

I think they have a valid complaint about that open source program Docker is running and lack of response, but the overall tone seems like they are scolding Docker for not giving away it's services for free. I have always felt that was strange how quickly people started taking Docker for granted, while simultaneously relying on them completely but also somehow dismissing their core utility as a trivial and unsophisti…

But Docker said they would give away their services for free to all that meet the DSOS requirements. They did so in the past for this very organization and suddenly pulled the rug and went into radio silence.

The way I see it, Docker can’t both have their cake and eat it. They can’t both get the nice PR and goodwill of claiming to provide free access to open source, and also not do it (and require them to pay to keep using it in the existing capacity).

Fine if they don’t want to provide a free service, but then they shouldn’t be able to claim to do so either.

Post reply on HN