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

81–90 of 153 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#81

Post by skywhopper »

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…

Nah, this is a bad take. There’s no excuse for them to be unresponsive to active users. Even from a purely profit-focused point of view, if Docker doesn’t want to give away free stuff, they should be encouraging/begging/cajoling users like this to convert to a paid plan. But they’re just ignoring them instead?

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#82

Post by planb »

TZubiri wrote: post #63
planb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not talking about Dockerfiles here, but about images from a registry. How many times faster and more reproducible is "docker run myimage:1.0.0" compared to your solution?

The thing with containerization is that it is sometimes used to virtualize an OS and sometimes to virtualize processes. My containerless worflow, when compared to typical container workflows, usually involves splitting some of the responsibilities to the OS virtualization layer and some to the process layer. For example, if I have a testing server and a prod server, to test a change I just git push to the testing bra…

> The thing with containerization is that it is sometimes used to virtualize an OS and sometimes to virtualize processes.

You can use any tool wrong - that does not make the tool obsolete.

> The whole details on how to live without docker (and docker registries by extension) won't fit a hacker news comment

An explanation how to do the same with docker WOULD fit in a hacker news comment. Sometim, abstractions are useful, even if they add another layer on top of existing stuff (and more dependencies).

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#83

Post by undecisive »

concerndc1tizen wrote: post #62
undecisive wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a tiny bit of missing context. This blog is for LinuxServer.io, who build repositories that produce free docker images, for free, paid for by donations, for a bunch of open source software. By the looks of things, they are literally a charity. Conversely, their complaint is not "aren't docker rubbish? Let's mob 'em" - it's "heads up, something seems to be wrong and docker are not responding to anything, chance…

> If you're reading this and you work for Docker in some relevant capacity, give us a hint as to what we're supposed to do here, we'd really appreciate it. It sounds to me like their ultimate goal is to get more free stuff. And I'm saying: open source should not rely on benevolent corporations. And writing articles to beg for services is not a healthy strategy in the long term. Instead: use open standards, don't rely…

I love how you intentionally cropped off the first two words of that sentence, try to make out that their 30 word side note was actually the whole point of the 800 word article, and you STILL didn't manage to make them sound as malicious as you wanted to.

"give us a hint" - "Stop begging!"

As I say, you're clearly coming into this with a strong unjustifiable bias, I can tell because you're forced to use words like "smear", "parasite", "exploiting", "beg", "indentured servitude" - it's a cover for the cognitive dissonance.

But if you genuinely would like a discussion about the pitfalls of the funding models of open source, yeah it's a reasonable question that has never been satisfactorily answered. There are whole PHD projects on the subject, and nobody's cracked it. Giving money to open source projects is difficult for many reasons - ranging from tax treatment to geography even to legality. Providing services is somewhat easier, but in many companies in some countries even that comes with geopolitical legal issues. Marketplaces only work if you have something to barter, and if you would like to contribute to the freedoms you enjoyed, it's hard to make that work in a marketplace model, not to mention that even providing people the option of donating money for a product comes with overhead (legal / technological / service / financial network / server etc).

If you would like a discussion about ensuring abstractions over the services you use, sure, I'm here for it. Of course, it's hampered by a lack of consistent interfaces, and in some cases interfaces that ensure they can never be smoothed over. But that sounds like a cool open source project - in this case, I guess it would be an anyhub kind of deal that can serve images for different use cases, paired with a DSL for defining a resource (that can generate a dockerfile / docker compose file, in docker's case). Of course, serving images isn't free, but you've cracked the problem of funding models of open source, right? Right?

And you mention indentured servitude, loaded though that phrase is, it's also a poor analogy. Tax would be a closer match. You depend on open source and make money off it? Great. Giving open source a cut of that pie in some way seems the morally right thing to do. How you do that is up to you, but telling people they can use your service then pulling the rug while simultaneously ghosting them? That sounds kind.

You know what, I think you're right - it's so much easier to lambast someone for daring trust or daring to express concern than it is to do anything meaningful to improve the landscape.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#84

Post by TZubiri »

sealeck wrote: post #76
TZubiri wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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!

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

Let's assume it's an equitable exchange.

"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!"

Getting into nuance here, I do see the benefit a corp has over hosting source code, training data, reputation, so we see eye to eye there. But I don't see much benefit of hosting container images. Add that to the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude more expensive than hosting code!

What value is there in being a provider of free hosting that is commesurate with being a host of source code?

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#85

Post by skywhopper »

concerndc1tizen wrote: post #6

If you don't like it, then why don't you use a different provider? If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff? Storage, compute, and traffic, isn't free. You've been the beneficiary of charity for years. Yes, the open source community has relied on this implicit charity as a parasite, by exploiting whatever free services they could. And now we're paying the price, as you sa…

Huh? If Docker wants to make money off folks like this, they ought to be attempting to sell to them. If they want to sunset the free services for open source thing, fine, but just ignoring it is completely broken behavior. They’re ignoring the contact methods they advertise when they should be using those as leads. It’s clear Docker is a dysfunctional business at this point.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#86

Post by thunky »

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 the overall tone seems like they are scolding Docker

I didn't find the article to be scolding or offensive in their tone. It's just a straight reporting of their experience and (imho valid) concerns.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#87

Post by skywhopper »

concerndc1tizen wrote: post #58
bayindirh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're framing this wrong. They don't whine because they didn't get DSOS status this year. They are confused because they didn't get an answer . They want communication, not free cookies.

> we were preparing for our annual DSOS renewal. This process is abysmal, there's no way to apply to roll over membership, or even a renewal process per se, you have to reapply from scratch every year using the same badly-designed form ... It sounds more to me like those who run DockerHub aren't that interested in giving away free service.

You’d think they’d at least try to sell to people who are asking for their services.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#88

Post by TZubiri »

Joker_vD wrote: post #77
TZubiri wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah yes, the phenomenon I was describing does apply more strongly to consumer software. But it also does apply to B2B software to a lesser degree.

In effect the fact that your business model relies on charging for bespoke software, proves that you make no money on software that can be reused for more than one client! Which is actually where most of the efficiency of software comes.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#89

Post by exsomet »

eproxus wrote: post #80
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…

But they did do it. By their own admission in the post, that isn’t really in question.

The implied question is whether or not they should _continue_ to do it in perpetuity. If docker did a cost:benefit of the program and decided it wasn’t worth it (maybe they didn’t get that much good PR after all?) it’s their prerogative to end it.

There’s a perfectly valid gripe about the lack of communication, just as a matter of courtesy; but again, taking from their very own post, docker (the company) has historically burned their hands on proactive communication before.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#90

Post by skywhopper »

concerndc1tizen wrote: post #62
undecisive wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a tiny bit of missing context. This blog is for LinuxServer.io, who build repositories that produce free docker images, for free, paid for by donations, for a bunch of open source software. By the looks of things, they are literally a charity. Conversely, their complaint is not "aren't docker rubbish? Let's mob 'em" - it's "heads up, something seems to be wrong and docker are not responding to anything, chance…

> If you're reading this and you work for Docker in some relevant capacity, give us a hint as to what we're supposed to do here, we'd really appreciate it. It sounds to me like their ultimate goal is to get more free stuff. And I'm saying: open source should not rely on benevolent corporations. And writing articles to beg for services is not a healthy strategy in the long term. Instead: use open standards, don't rely…

You are really going off the rails here. Asking for a response is eminently reasonable when Docker advertises that they will give away free service.
Post reply on HN