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

Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

sacra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 334 posts

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#91

Post by mathverse »

jbverschoor wrote: post #76
FlyingSnake wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised by this as well, but maybe it was the HN bias that made that impression. My company received the memo from Docker to upgrade to paid version, and I helped many to move on to Podman. However there were teams for which getting a Docker Desktop license was easier than the Podman move. I am sure there are many more companies that can easily afford the convenience of Docker Desktop for a trivial fee.

What I don't understand is that devs that get paid 200k+ complain about getting any software license

It is the license fuckery, being stuck on a single platform, having to pay for upgrades for no reason ( well alright I understand this but it honestly sucks. You usually dont need the features and are happy with what you used) etc etc

Pricing virtual assets is hard

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#92

Post by paxys »

paulmd wrote: post #66
thefounder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that I have to install on MacOS so that I can run docker. Is there any other way(i.e no gui utility) ?

your question is confusing, docker-desktop is a gui utility. rancher-desktop is the equivalent to that. if you don't want a command line, docker itself (the underlying utility that the docker-desktop GUI drives) is free, in contrast to the GUI portion. Or kubernetes. so the direct answer is "brew install docker".

Nope, none of this is correct. Docker only runs on Linux. The core purpose of Docker Desktop (and similar tools) is to spin up a Linux VM under the hood and manage its lifecycle, route network calls, share volumes etc. You can do all of this yourself of course, but it will be a non-trivial amount of effort to set it up.

"brew install docker" is just another way to install Docker Desktop. It does not run Docker natively on MacOS, because that is impossible.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#93

Post by moduspol »

bdcravens wrote: post #79

For the many here who have moved to an alternative (colima, Rancher, podman, etc), other than cost, is there a compelling (ie technical) advantage to these options? (on macos specifically)

Kubernetes deprecated Docker support a few years back, so there will come a day that it may not be part of Docker Desktop.

Rancher Desktop supports k3s with containerd out of the box, which has no announced deprecation.

It's possible they plan to add containerd support to the built-in Kubernetes management of Docker Desktop once Docker is no longer supported, but I haven't heard about it.

Beyond that, I'm not aware of any technical advantages. For me Rancher Desktop essentially covers 99% of what Docker Desktop did, so just knowing that there won't be a point where it'll cost money is valuable.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#95

Post by M3L0NM4N »

isthisthingon99 wrote: post #72
fullsend wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great move by them to introduce a license requirement for 250+ seats but not waste resources enforcing it (as far as I can tell). Those who will pay, will pay. Those who won’t, will switch tools no matter how painful. They stayed relevant by keeping all their users, even those technically breaking the license, but also collected some cash.

I have a product that has zero reduction in functionality if your license or trial runs out, just constantly nags you when you do useful things with it. Eventually, the workers at the company insist on the company buying it. Sometimes takes 6 months hah.

Companies can also get in trouble for not buying it, you could have an employee turn into a whistleblower for a lawsuit, to which they would get a % of.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#96

Post by mynameisvlad »

warinukraine wrote: post #87
mardifoufs wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment was talking about Docker desktop, which is clearly targeted at macos and windows. Saying that you can just download it with an apt command is irrelevant to the discussion, because we can't use that outside of linux.

> which is clearly targeted at macos and windows I didn't know what it was, so I didn't know it was only for macos and windows. If instead of being sarcastic he had just answered my question, I wouldn't have said something irrelevant.

You asked a question which literally has no relevancy to or answer in macOS. There is no apt. There is no default package manager. There is no equivalent command to run on a new system.

If you wanted a real answer, you should have asked a real question. Something like, are there any options other than docker desktop for macOS?

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#97

Post by isthisthingon99 »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #95
isthisthingon99 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a product that has zero reduction in functionality if your license or trial runs out, just constantly nags you when you do useful things with it. Eventually, the workers at the company insist on the company buying it. Sometimes takes 6 months hah.

Companies can also get in trouble for not buying it, you could have an employee turn into a whistleblower for a lawsuit, to which they would get a % of.

New revenue stream!

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#98

Post by microtonal »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #54
paxys wrote: post #8

I remember everyone had written Docker off for dead when they announced their updated pricing plans, but they really made perfect sense, and I am happy to see the company recover. A large chunk of the tech world today relies on their products, but they were making next to nothing for it. It is definitely worth it for large companies to throw a few dollars their way considering the massive amount of value they are get…

I'm surprised by this as well, but maybe it was the HN bias that made that impression. My company received the memo from Docker to upgrade to paid version, and I helped many to move on to Podman. However there were teams for which getting a Docker Desktop license was easier than the Podman move. I am sure there are many more companies that can easily afford the convenience of Docker Desktop for a trivial fee.

Right, $5/$9/$24 is nothing compared to a developer salary. So if developers switch to Podman, fixing the occasional glitch is going to be more expensive than a Docker subscription. E.g. a while ago there was a bug (caused by a qemu update) that didn't allow Podman to run when the VM used >=4GiB memory [1]. I can imagine that such an issue would result in a large amount of wasted time for triaging and working around this issue.

Not meant negatively towards Podman, maintaining such a package in a constantly moving ecosystem is hard. The point is more that you pay Docker to do the extensive testing for you, so that the work-stopping issues are ironed out before they roll out to customers.

[1] https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/14303

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#99

Post by mynameisvlad »

nerdponx wrote: post #85
mynameisvlad wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use Colima to get the same functionality, minus auto-start on boot. https://github.com/abiosoft/colima

I had problems pushing to AWS ECR from Colima and had to switch back to Docker Desktop. But for day-to-day usage it seemed to work great.

I had to manually ln colima’s docker.sock to the default to get AWS SAM to work. Regardless of setting the env variable or docker context, it would always try to use the default docker.sock.

Might be a similar issue for ECR.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#100

Post by runlevel1 »

paxys wrote: post #8

I remember everyone had written Docker off for dead when they announced their updated pricing plans, but they really made perfect sense, and I am happy to see the company recover. A large chunk of the tech world today relies on their products, but they were making next to nothing for it. It is definitely worth it for large companies to throw a few dollars their way considering the massive amount of value they are get…

The reasonable price helps. We could have switched back to docker-machine. We even had a PR ready to do it on our workstation setup scripts. But given what they were asking for the value given, it didn't make sense to cheap out.
Post reply on HN