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

91–100 of 153 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#91

Post by TZubiri »

planb wrote: post #82
TZubiri wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 usef…

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

It's not wrong to virtualize an OS or processes, it's its whole raison d'etre. Also very common see:

https://hub.docker.com/_/debian

https://hub.docker.com/_/postgres

"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)."

There's so many usecases for docker/( kernel)virtualization that you most certainly cannot fit it in a comment. But I would be entertained if you tried.

Virtualization is as generic and flexible as a programming language, you really can use it to do anything a Turing machine can do.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#92

Post by skywhopper »

concerndc1tizen wrote: post #70
Kovah wrote: post #39

I'm absolutely stunned by all the negative comments in here bashing the Linuxserver project. "Run your own registry", "you get everything for free be grateful", and so on. What the hell is wrong with you? They are a couple of guys trying to make software more accessible to thousands of people. Indeed it's a large project and one may question if they should get _everything_ for free. But that's not the point of this a…

> the absolutely horrendous behaviour They've ignored their application. That hardly qualifies as "horrendous". Don't you believe in freedom? It's fair to criticize them for monopolistic practices and creating a closed ecosystem. But if you want social goods (enforced through social norms), then the company should be publicly owned, not private.

Dude, your posts are filled with wild non-sequiturs. “Don’t you believe in freedom?” What?

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#93

Post by Ekaros »

exsomet wrote: post #89
eproxus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sometimes I might agree on possible take that no PR is better than bad PR or any PR. Just quietly dropping whole thing could be least bad publicity.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#94

Post by surgical_fire »

exe34 wrote: post #43
surgical_fire wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the open source community has relied on this implicit charity as a parasite Very loaded language you use, when, typically, commercial software relies on Open Source software and community efforts as a parasite.

Projection allows one to set the frame of the debate, if you then accuse them of parasitism, it doesn't carry the same weight, as they've already used it against you.

Except I am not projecting anything, and I didn't accuse OP of being a parasite.

I am just describing a factual state of things of how companies relate to Open Source Software.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#95

Post by g-b-r »

joshstrange wrote: post #75
tuyiown wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

Just as in personal relations, sending a final message rather than ghosting can be uncomfortable, but that's not an excuse not to do it.

If/when you don't want to interact further, just say it (hopefully stating the reasons, such as that the hiring process is imperfect, but the company can't devote infinite resources to it); after you did that it's completely fine to ignore further inquiries.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#96

Post by g-b-r »

concerndc1tizen wrote: post #64
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?

To some people, rejection is uncomfortable. And rejection is noisy and wasteful. And companies can't really be honest in this situation anyway, so it's pointless. So I like the Hollywood approach: Don't call us, we'll call you.

So far as you say that upfront

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#97

Post by curt15 »

bayindirh wrote: post #78
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.…

Containers took off because it was the easiest way for developers targeting Linux to get a predictable runtime environment. It freed them having to worry about the differences between Debian's OpenSSL or Red Hat's OpenSSL libraries or even the differences between different versions of a distribution. You don't see nearly the same level of uptake among Windows developers because not only is there only one Windows API for everyone to target but also Microsoft is willing to bend over backwards to preserve backward compatibility.

Containers also predated "modern sysadmins"; prior to docker, Google ran its prod software in chroots for the same reasons as above:

>The software run by the server is typically run in a chroot with a limited view of the root partition, allowing the application to be hermetic and protected from root filesystem changes. We also have support for multiple libcs and use static linking for most library uses. This combination makes it easy to have hundreds of different apps with their own dependencies that change at their own pace without breaking if the OS that boots the machine changes.

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/lisa13/lisa13...

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#98

Post by concerndc1tizen »

undecisive wrote: post #83
concerndc1tizen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "s…

> if you genuinely would like a discussion about the pitfalls of the funding models of open source

That is absolutely what I want, and I appreciate your contribution to the debate.

> you're forced to use words like "smear", "parasite"

I'm just trying to use fewer words, because people's attention spans are really short these days, which naturally requires the words to have more dense and intense meaning.

> it's so much easier to lambast someone

It's not easy, it's hard. People are refusing to accept that corporations are not your friends. Have you ever tried criticizing Apple?

My critique is specifically that the article:

1) presumes that Docker Hub should provide the service, despite clearly not responding to their application for free service.

2) then uses an article that invites peer pressure onto the company to get what they want.

Instead, I argue that it would be healthier if they:

1) explained why relying on Docker Hub is dangerous

2) what the alternatives are, and why they're not good enough

3) what needs to change, which may include consumer behavior - things that we control, because we really don't have control over Docker Hub.

> indentured servitude

By collectively perpetuating our dependence on them, we are engaged in self-enslavement.

And I think this type of article is a form of begging that our masters haven't given us enough breadcrumbs lately.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#99

Post by concerndc1tizen »

undecisive wrote: post #83
concerndc1tizen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "s…

> If you would like a discussion about ensuring abstractions over the services you use

Yes, please.

I'd love to hear your ideas, and I agree that we still need to figure things out, particularly how to make open source self-sustaining.

Re: We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

#100

Post by concerndc1tizen »

skywhopper wrote: post #92
concerndc1tizen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the absolutely horrendous behaviour They've ignored their application. That hardly qualifies as "horrendous". Don't you believe in freedom? It's fair to criticize them for monopolistic practices and creating a closed ecosystem. But if you want social goods (enforced through social norms), then the company should be publicly owned, not private.

Dude, your posts are filled with wild non-sequiturs. “Don’t you believe in freedom?” What?

Dude,

I'd argue that the people in these comments are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I see people presenting two beliefs:

1) enterprises should be free to offer the services they want, to who they want

2) consumers have the right to bully enterprises that don't offer what they want

And that's fine. People can have different politics.

But IIUC, these two beliefs are mutually exclusive.

Dictionary for the illiterate:

- Bully: when you use peer pressure, through public exposure, to induce negative consequences, as a political strategy, for furthering an agenda, and getting the victim to align with your interests.

Post reply on HN