[HN Gopher] Docker Raises $23M
___________________________________________________________________
Docker Raises $23M
Author : nickjj
Score : 257 points
Date : 2021-03-16 15:24 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.docker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.docker.com)
| ohiovr wrote:
| May our free lunches continue forever. Thanks docker!
| f430 wrote:
| does docker make net profit? or is the "future" potential
| earnings at a crazy multiple still making sense when yields are
| rising and inflation is expected to rise?
| musicale wrote:
| It is my hope that Docker will continue to be a self-correcting
| problem.
| SilasX wrote:
| I'm confused -- is this a liquidity event or something (or
| somehow to let employees cash out options)? The release doesn't
| mention anything about that, and yet $23M seems like a small
| amount of money for Docker to have to beg the equity market for,
| given how small that figure is compared to their revenues:
|
| https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/docker-monitoring-...
| adictator wrote:
| Totally tangential: The last 3 DockerCons featured at least one
| hijab glorification. Not sure what message Docker is trying to
| give to the world, especially when the rest of the world is
| fighting this oppressive practice that demeans & objectifies
| women!
|
| Let's see how many hijabs are used in this year's DockerCon.
| yuppie_scum wrote:
| Podman
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| What about podman?
| musicale wrote:
| How much money has lxc raised? ;-)
| supermatt wrote:
| Ive tried giving docker money MANY times, but their pre-sales
| support is absolutely abysmal. Maybe this will help fix that!
| meddlepal wrote:
| Im still a little surprised Microsoft hasn't bought Docker (or
| one of the other big compute-infra players).
| wealthyyy wrote:
| If they did, they would rename it as Microcubes.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Why bother? They have their own container management
| infrastructure.
| meddlepal wrote:
| Inbound marketing and developer mind share. Seamless
| integration between docker tooling and Azure etc etc.
| ghaff wrote:
| Docker sold its compute infra business.
| meddlepal wrote:
| I wasn't suggesting they buy Docker's (former) compute-infra
| business but that it would be a good complimentary buy to
| Microsoft's or one of the other compute-infra player's
| businesses to own Docker since it is an additional tap into
| the developer market.
| mleonhard wrote:
| I've been waiting for two features from Docker:
|
| 1. Launch a container by specifying its image digest, not image
| ID [0] [1]. You can pull an image with a specific digest, but
| then it gets an ID that is unique to the image repository. Later
| deployments must use that different image ID. This makes
| deployment tooling needlessly complicated. And it breaks the
| security guarantees of the digest by allowing the repository to
| modify the image.
|
| 2. Copy a file into a container with docker-compose, without
| requiring Swarm [1].
|
| Do financial problems explain their slowness? I wish they would
| just charge $100/year per seat for Docker for macOS and then fix
| the long-standing problems.
|
| And sell a hosted tool to do trusted builds of docker images from
| hashed sources. Reproducible builds would be great, too.
|
| [0]
| https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/16482#issuecomment-29782...
|
| [1] https://windsock.io/explaining-docker-image-
| ids/#contentaddr...
|
| [2] https://github.com/docker/compose/issues/5523
| tpetry wrote:
| I would pay 100$/month if they would solve the slow filesystem
| performance. Every workaround solution has some problems, most
| often high latency or simply stopping the sync.
| filleokus wrote:
| It feels like Docker (Inc) is becoming less and less "relevant"
| for each year that passes. At least from my perspective, they led
| the popularisation of containerisation and the whole cattle-not-
| pets approach of deploying apps. They created big and long
| lasting change in the industry.
|
| But they seem to have lost the production environment race to
| Kubernetes, at least for now. They are the biggest player in the
| dev-machine market, but more alternatives are popping up making
| it even harder to monetise. And containerd isn't a part of Docker
| (Inc) any more.
|
| They do have Docker Hub, and its privileged position as the
| default registry of all Docker installs. But I don't really see
| why paying (i.e enterprise) customers would pick Docker Hub over
| their friendly neighbourhood cloud provider registry where they
| already have contracts.
|
| Will Docker start rate limiting the public free repos even
| harder? Maybe making big orgs pay for the privilege of being
| hosted in the default docker registry? Charging to have the
| images "verified"?
|
| Anyways, I hope Docker find some viable business model, it would
| be sad to see them fail commercially after arguably succeeding in
| changing the (devops) world.
| crb002 wrote:
| To be relevant they need to fork Google Test and add cgroup
| eBPF expectation tests. Run integration tests with thousands of
| mini-instances that no-op the network stack.
|
| Also start making pull requests for a Kubernetes killing
| feature in the Linux kernel - distributed cgroups and ulimits.
| caymanjim wrote:
| Kubernetes is so much more than most people should want or
| need. It's far too complicated and heavyweight for smaller or
| simpler deployments. In AWS, most people should use ECS/Fargate
| instead. There are other competing container environments as
| well. Your point still stands; Docker popularized
| containerization and are in danger of becoming irrelevant
| because they ceded the container execution environment to
| others.
| tarsinge wrote:
| I find Docker Compose really useful for single server
| deployments.
| Fiahil wrote:
| I think you missed the biggest value proposition of
| Kubernetes: the scheduling and container orchestration are
| nice, but that's not why you use it. Portability is the
| killer feature. Being able to stand up reproductively a
| clustered application without relying on custom-made sh
| script and ansible playbooks is a godsend. Using ECS goes
| against portability and just coerce you into more vendor
| lock-ins.
| thow-01187 wrote:
| This is big in enterprise software.
|
| Some corporate customers have bare-metal servers, some
| OpenStack, some run in AWS, some on VMWare, some on Azure,
| more exotic options are not rare either.
|
| Kubernetes smooths out the differences, letting you develop
| an application against a standard, google-able API that is
| deployable anywhere.
| bjt wrote:
| I don't know about "ceded". The container execution
| environment wasn't a very defensible position. People
| recognized very quickly that Docker's execution environment
| was a very thin layer over existing Linux kernel
| functionality. At my company in 2013, we launched our own
| internal container containerization about the same time
| Docker came out, based on LXC.
|
| That said, I agree about a higher level PaaS-style offering
| being a better fit for most companies.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| I beg to differ. The jump from learning Docker (and
| containers generally) to learning Kubernetes is not "hard".
| Sure it's a different paradigm of application deployment but
| I've seen far too many posts on HN that completely undermine
| its value in the name of difficulty.
|
| You can use it if you're not "at scale" completely fine and
| reap all the benefits as if you were.
|
| Idk it's because people hate Google, so they hate Kubernetes,
| whether they're "get off my lawn" DevOps heads who want to
| maintain their complicated walled garden deployments they
| hand-rolled to maintain job security or what but it's frankly
| embarrassing.
| KarlKode wrote:
| I might have misunderstood you but there is a huge
| difference between a developer being able to use docker and
| understand the basics of containerization and CI/CD, and a
| devops/ops person managing servers/clusters using docker
| swarm or kubernetes. The latter of the two is so far more
| difficult to master than the first.
|
| Managing a kubernetes cluster has so many possibilities to
| shoot yourself in the foot without realizing it. There are
| dozens of tutorials online how to set up a simple
| linux/nignx/python/postgres cluster (including lots of
| results for common error google searches) while routing
| problems of your legacy php application that is behind an
| istio controlled ingress running on a specific kubernetes
| version will leave you for yourself.
|
| Sure you won't be able to scale indefinitely. Switching a
| solid containerized project running on your self-managed
| machines to a kubernetes setup will be quite easy (if you
| heeded devops best practices).
| thow-01187 wrote:
| In my experience, adopting Kubernetes is seldom a well
| informed decision weighting the pros and the cons. Usually
| it's a stampede effect of higher-ups pushing for
| Kubernetes, because everyone else is, without really
| understanding what it entails.
|
| The truth is, Kubernetes is awesome, it brings many
| features to the table. But it also requires ~10% additional
| very expensive headcount, ~20% more tasks overall, and
| prolongs the release cycle by ~20%. Figures are from my
| experience. Those drawbacks are rarely ever discussed -
| it's just dumped onto existing teams on top of their
| existing responsibilities, leading to struggle and
| frustration.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| Speaking from personal experience, I feel like you just
| pulled those numbers out of thin air.
|
| At my job, we went from overly complex Elasticbeanstalk
| deployments to pushing out new releases via Helm charts
| into k8s...deployment time vastly improved as did
| cognative load on what was actually happening.
|
| I'd never go back.
| dchichkov wrote:
| To add to that, a step to use anything from Google is a
| step onto Google's infamous "deprecation treadmill". A
| rather frustrating lifestyle (unless you are inside
| Google and your code gets updated/maintained in the
| monorepo).
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Using k8s to deploy is easy, setting up a cluster with the
| 'new' admin command is also straightforward...
|
| Doing maintenance on the cluster isn't. Debugging routing
| issues with it isn't either, configuring a production
| worthy routing to begin with isn't easy either. it's only
| quick if you deploy weave-net and call it a day.
|
| I would strongly discourage anyone using k8s in production
| unless it's hosted or you have a full team whose only
| responsibility is it's maintenance, provisioning and
| configuration
| gravypod wrote:
| Very few people who suggest using kubernetes are
| suggesting using kubespray or kubeadm. 99% of companies
| will want to just pay for a managed kubernetes cluster
| which, for all intents and purposes, is basically AWS ECS
| with more features and less vendor lockin.
|
| It should be also known that all "run your code on
| machines" platforms (like ECS) have similar issues. I
| remember using ECS pre-fargate and dealing with a lot of
| hardware issues with the instance types we were on. It
| was a huge time sink.
|
| > it's only quick if you deploy weave-net and call it a
| day
|
| That's exactly the benifit of kube. If something is a
| pain you can walk up to one of the big players and get an
| off-the-shelf solution that works and spend very little
| time integrating it into your deployment. No
| cloudformation stacks or other mess. Just send me some
| yaml and tell me some annotations to set on my existing
| deployments.
|
| > I would strongly discourage anyone using k8s in
| production unless it's hosted or you have a full team
| whose only responsibility is it's maintenance,
| provisioning and configuration
|
| If you have compute requirements at the scale where it
| makes sense for you to manage bare metal it should be
| pretty easy for you to find budget for 2 to 5 people to
| manage your fleet across all regions.
| nullserver wrote:
| So 1/4 to 3/4 of a million per year in salary.
|
| Plus disrupting all the developers.
|
| So far every large scale implementation i have seen has
| cost the developers a year in productivity.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Hi. I run my production 7 figure ARR SaaS platform on
| google hosted k8s. I spend under 10 minutes a week on
| kubernetes. Basically give it an hour every few months.
| Otherwise it is just a super awesome super stable way for
| me to run a bunch of bin-packed docker images. I think
| it's saved me tons of time and money over lambda or ECS.
|
| It's not F500 scale, but it's over 100 CPU scale.
| Confident I have a ton of room to scale this.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _I beg to differ. The jump from learning Docker (and
| containers generally) to learning Kubernetes is not
| "hard"._
|
| Unless you are at a scale that you can employ a full-time
| Kubernetes team, you probably don't need Kubernetes, and if
| you insist on using it for production anyway, you
| absolutely should use one of the many managed offerings (DO
| is probably cheapest, I have no affiliation with them), or
| shrinkwrapped product like Tanzu.
|
| Bootstrapping from scratch on bare metal remains non-
| trivial and an in-place upgrade is an order of magnitude
| harder.
| cam-perry wrote:
| Almost two years ago it was MUCH easier for me to learn
| how to deploy on DO-managed Kubernetes than ECS or
| Fargate.
|
| Probably didn't need it, but whatever, it worked and I
| had to learn something new anyways.
| ncrmro wrote:
| Actually with k3s it's pretty dang simple!
| goatinaboat wrote:
| Production workload on k3s? It's what you run on a
| laptop!
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| What if you run production on your laptop? :)
| f430 wrote:
| > Anyways, I hope Docker find some viable business model, it
| would be sad to see them fail commercially after arguably
| succeeding in changing the (devops) world.
|
| It if had a sustainable business model it would be deploying it
| now.
| pjmlp wrote:
| I was already doing containers with HP-UX Vaults in version 11
| back in 1999.
|
| Just like any tool that doesn't offer more than an abstraction
| layer over OS features, eventually it becomes irrelevant as OS
| tooling improves.
| justicezyx wrote:
| From [1]
|
| > This is a Virtual Vault release of HP-UX, providing
| enhanced security features. Virtual Vault is a
| compartmentalised operating system in which each file is
| assigned a compartment and processes only have access to
| files in the appropriate compartment and unlike most other
| UNIX systems the superuser (or root) does not have complete
| access to the system without following correct procedures.
|
| It's cgroup + chroot, in the closest form.
|
| I took it as a very technically incorrect implication with "I
| was already doing containers with HP-UX Vaults in version 11
| back in 1999." Docker is an _development product_ that
| removes OS as the core concept from application development
| process. This is at least a milestone as fundamental as
| VMware 's VM tech.
|
| The commercial failure of Docker container is unfortunate.
|
| But if the technology community cannot appreciate its
| significance, and let the VM-driven mindset belittle it,
| that's a true tragedy that puts off the drive to innovate.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-UX
| pjmlp wrote:
| You forgot to look up what happened since 1999, like
| Virtual Vault having been replaced by proper containers on
| HP-UX,
|
| https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docLocale=e
| n...
|
| And Tru64, Solaris, BSD also had similar capabilities on
| the UNIX linage, and naturally IBM and Unisys also had
| their own versions of the theme on their platforms.
| TheGRS wrote:
| And Slack is just IRC for people who don't know better am I
| right?
| sombremesa wrote:
| It pretty much is. A lot of people still use Git GUIs and
| automatic transmission has handily beaten manual
| transmission in the US - not everyone understands or even
| wants to understand the tech they use.
| u801e wrote:
| Regarding transmission though, why hasn't the automatic
| transmission handly beaten the manual transmission in the
| rest of the world? My guess is because of the increased
| cost of maintenance and repair. I guess people are more
| willing to pay for support when abtracting the internals
| of their VCS away compared to others who understand it at
| a low level.
| TheGRS wrote:
| Point being that there is value in the abstraction,
| people value it, people pay for it. I know how to use a
| stick shift and I'll still pay for automatic for the ease
| of use.
| u801e wrote:
| Though for one who is experienced driving a vehicle with
| a manual transmission, a lot of the actions become second
| nature, meaning that it's not really more or less
| difficult to use. The only time a manual transmission
| vehicle is arguably more difficult to drive is in stop
| and go traffic, but I've handled that by maintaining a
| larger following distance and trying to maintain pace at
| idle speed in first or second gear.
| rusk wrote:
| Interesting analogy vs car transmission. I always find
| auto frustrating because it doesn't give me the love of
| control I'm comfortable with ...
| deckard1 wrote:
| probably neither here nor there, but I always see manual
| transmission in new cars as an anachronism bordering on
| placebo. Primarily because everything else is still an
| abstraction. Specifically steering. I recall BMW or maybe
| Porsche getting raked over the coals for their lifeless
| floaty steering in a few of their newer models. Modern
| steering is all emulated anyway, giving you that "road"
| feel. Along with cars piping in engine noise via the
| speakers (ugh)
| seniorThrowaway wrote:
| It's purely preference at this point and likely mainly
| for older people like me who grew up in the era where
| manuals were cheaper and more efficient. Neither is
| really true anymore, manuals have become an exotic option
| in most cases in the USA and the new automatics are more
| efficient. Complexity and cost to repair on the other
| hand...
| spullara wrote:
| There was a huge uprising against its removal from
| Porsche cars until they finally relented and added the
| option back starting with the GT4 but now it is also in
| the 911s.
| [deleted]
| deckard1 wrote:
| > Just like any tool that doesn't offer more than an
| abstraction layer over OS features, eventually it becomes
| irrelevant as OS tooling improves
|
| You'd think. But I think what we're seeing here is the
| opposite side of the coin flip of that thread that smug
| idiots like to continually link here where people were saying
| Dropbox could be implemented in a day using basic Linux
| tools. Those people in the thread were always correct (I
| mean, this _is_ "Hacker" news, so people will approach every
| problem with their hammer... shocking).
|
| Dropbox just happened to get lucky. Docker, not so much. Both
| have serious competitors, including Google.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Portability is key. Being able to run an Ubuntu container on
| macOS is a killer feature.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Containers aren't virtual machines.
| m463 wrote:
| In the macos case, they actually are. docker runs in a vm
| on macos.
|
| Actually, I believe one text file is the docker killer
| feature.
| sneak wrote:
| > _It feels like Docker (Inc) is becoming less and less
| "relevant" for each year that passes._
|
| This is underscored for me by the fact that their latest end-
| user (dev) tools aren't even free software any longer. They
| started off being unixy as hell, doing one thing and doing it
| well (and being hackable in the process), and now they ship
| closed-source spyware under the exact same brand.
| m463 wrote:
| When I went to install docker on macos and it started phoning
| home from inside the installer, my opinion of them changed.
| brian_herman wrote:
| I want docker to succeed but I agree with you... I just love
| typing the docker command and the registry was great.
| anandrm wrote:
| IMO docker did an amazing paradigm shift of many apps from
| heavy weight VMs to Micro Services,lot in CI/CD etc .. But all
| of them dnt make sense without an orchestration platform . Just
| like how a standalone VM does not make any commercial sense.
| This has been a question for long time about their revenue
| model. I guess they did try with compose , swarm , etc but the
| space was already taken by Kubernetes . I dnt know docker as
| company would be profitable ..
| dschuessler wrote:
| > They are the biggest player in the dev-machine market, but
| more alternatives are popping up making it even harder to
| monetise.
|
| As someone who loves the feature set of Docker for development
| but grows increasingly disillusioned with its performance on
| Mac, would you mind elaborating what these alternatives are?
| mbreese wrote:
| Is there any profit to be gained from knowing which
| repositories are the most active? Which get downloaded the
| most? I mean... you'd think there would be some "market
| research" type of thing that could be sold, but now that I
| think about it more, I'm not sure. I assume most of the
| repositories are either OSS that are pulled a ton, or are
| pulled by an individual or small team. I'm not sure what the
| business opportunity is from that knowledge. If there was such
| a market for that information, I assume they'd have already
| tried to exploit it...
| IceWreck wrote:
| Does the Docker company even do anything to stay relevant?
|
| * The popularized containers but their core tool has been
| replaced by superior alternatives like Podman.
|
| * They sold their enterprise registry which wouldve earned them
| actual money.
|
| * The consumer registry has tons of free/cheaper alternatives
| like github's container registry, something from gitlab and on
| the enterprise side, there is Red Hat's quay.
|
| * Docker Swarm is dead compared to Kubernetes.
| m463 wrote:
| I think podman is a good start, but not there yet. Give it a
| year or two.
| ColdHeat wrote:
| I mostly agree here but I'm not really sure that Podman has
| replaced Docker. I'm also curious how you're determining that
| Podman is superior to Docker?
| pjmlp wrote:
| It definitely has on Red-Hat.
| mark_and_sweep wrote:
| At first, I wanted to read the article. But having to wait more
| than one minute to submit my cookie preferences, I closed the tab
| and left.
|
| If anyone at Docker is reading this: Please reconsider your
| cookie banner implementation.
| ignoramous wrote:
| For this reason, I find myself often often using archive.is to
| browse text-only websites, including twitter links.
|
| https://archive.is/iGdbt
| dang wrote:
| Of course it's annoying, but posts like this end up becoming
| annoying too, and even damaging, when they gather upvotes and
| mass at the top of a thread, choking out the on-topic
| discussion. That's why we have this rule:
|
| " _Please don 't complain about website formatting, back-button
| breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be
| interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then
| friendly feedback might be helpful._"
|
| The upvotes are really more the problem than the comment, but
| please don't post such comments and then such upvotes will have
| no surface to stick to.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ivanche wrote:
| In situations like these I can only say a massive _thank you_
| to uMatrix + uBlock Origin author!
| brtkdotse wrote:
| It's perfectly readable even if you don't click on anything?
| And it doesn't set any cookies until you agree.
| dean177 wrote:
| Trust arc is incredibly obnoxious
| raverbashing wrote:
| Especially as a corporate site (that is, not a click-farm
| that relies on tracking ads) this is unacceptable
|
| "Trust arc" I'd trust the site more if it had a sensible
| cookie policy
| birktj wrote:
| Is this kind of artificial delay even legal under the GDRP?
| Does anyone know if there has been any lawsuits against trust
| arc and co over this stuff? After waiting forever I was
| greeted with: "Some opt-outs failed. Opt-out requests
| responded with error or timeout. Please try again". How is
| this okay?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| It isn't (GDPR regulates how consent can be obtained and
| shenanigans like these are an obvious example of bad faith)
| but the entities supposed to enforce the GDPR are
| absolutely incompetent and don't care.
| TLightful wrote:
| That's some decent patience you've got there.
|
| I give websites 5 seconds, tops.
| jeofken wrote:
| To muggles it can be explained line this: computers send
| letters to each other. Getting a webpage is sending a letter
| that says "can I please GET the document you call /mypage?",
| where the other part replies "OK (200), by the way, next time
| you write, please include this token "<cookie>", here is your
| document".
|
| When I send the next letter, I (or my user agent) can chose to
| send along the cookie, or not. The server does not force me.
| This is why the EU cookie law regulating HTTP messages makes no
| sense.
| matsemann wrote:
| Meh, the onus is on the web pages not tracking all kind of
| shit. Don't blame the law for exposing it.
|
| Also, gdpr consent isn't that particular about
| implementation. Cookies aren't something special that needs
| consent. It's their usage.
| [deleted]
| TameAntelope wrote:
| And here I wasn't asked at all about my preferences! I wonder
| why our experience was so different.
| bdcp wrote:
| I've checked, mine was blocked by adblocker
| rsstack wrote:
| My guess: you aren't in the EU and the top commenter is.
| random5634 wrote:
| These cookie banners are so annoying - govt messes this type of
| stuff over and over. Let me control cookies on my end, I can
| choose not to accept cookies using my own browser controls, or
| delete them after 1 hour etc.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| They dont need consent for cookies. They need consent for
| _tracking_
| random5634 wrote:
| Heads up - most users do NOT care about tracking, and click
| yes to these popups. Do folks on HN not get this?
|
| This is all posturing. If you want to reduce tracking, use
| a browser that reduces the tracking. Seriously, just use
| total cookie protection or something on firefox.
| ncallaway wrote:
| > most users do NOT care about tracking, and click yes to
| these popups
|
| By a corollary, some users DO care about tracking and
| click "no" to these popups.
| random5634 wrote:
| Which ends up doing almost nothing in terms of actual
| tracking.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| There is a cookie banner filter list for uBlock Origin :)
| hiq wrote:
| GitHub has no cookie banner[0], how come docker.com needs
| one?
|
| [0]: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
| SilasX wrote:
| Per my comment on the HN discussion at the time, that was
| based on a _very_ dubious interpretation of the law. They
| are getting around needing the popup by only using
| "necessary" cookies, which doesn't need consent, but then
| they turn around and use the cookies for unnecessary things
| (like analytics) that therefore _do_ require a consent
| popup, but they don 't ask for it.
|
| Analogy would be like:
|
| Law: you can't store someone's picture or personal data
| without their consent, unless it's necessary for the
| transaction.
|
| Most companies: <nag you for consent to store your picture>
|
| GitHub: We authenticate you by your face, so it's necessary
| to collect that, so we don't need to get your consent for
| it. Then, once we have it, we do whatever the fudge we want
| with it.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903
| speedgoose wrote:
| It's actually not about the cookies, a website is allowed to
| have technical cookies without a banner, but getting your
| consent to track you and use and sell your data.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Exactly. But trackers try to hide this and make it seem
| harmless.
| neon_electro wrote:
| "govt" didn't develop the specific cookie banner
| implementation Docker is using.
| hinkley wrote:
| Malicious compliance.
| random5634 wrote:
| Google is facing a 5B lawsuit over incongnito mode. The
| fact that someone goes overboard with this crap is not
| unreasonable.
| nvr219 wrote:
| yeah this is Docker's legal team.
| enumjorge wrote:
| Yeah the government is far from perfect, but people also
| treat it as a punching bag. It was companies who used the
| lack of regulation in tech to abuse cookies, and our
| government responded with regulation. And now some sites
| are implementing those rules in very annoying ways. Instead
| of getting mad at the party who is trying to protect you in
| this situation, how about directing that anger at the
| parties who caused the problem in the first place?
| random5634 wrote:
| I control who sets cookies on my machine. We all do.
| Don't like them? Block them.
|
| What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? I'm
| serious, has anyone analyzed this? It really shows how
| the heavy hand of govt has ZERO cost/benefit constraint
| or analysis. Browsing on phones is particularly painful.
|
| I wish we could just set an accept all cookies header in
| our browser and govt would let these websites then stop
| displaying these damn notices, banners and consent boxes.
|
| The GPDR ones (if you use euro websites) are getting even
| crazier.
| yrro wrote:
| > What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups?
|
| Disclosure
| ncallaway wrote:
| > What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups?
|
| I appreciate the ability to allow "required" cookies, but
| reject all other cookies.
|
| I agree that I would absolutely prefer an HTTP header for
| cookie preferences instead of pop-ups. But the new cookie
| popups add some value to me, in letting me allow session
| authentication cookies, and reject all others.
|
| An outright block on all local cookies tends to break
| authentication for many sites.
| KronisLV wrote:
| Why not have a setting or two in Firefox/Chrome/Safari
| menu: - reject all cookies - allow
| only required cookies - allow all cookies
|
| And never to have to fall into 100s of different dark
| patterns by people who have spent dozens of hours coming
| up with solutions that would basically trick people in
| clicking whichever button is highlighted (usually the
| "accept all cookies" one) just so they can browse some
| content?
| ncallaway wrote:
| Well, that would require some kind of interoperability
| between the client and the website (like an HTTP header
| that sends cookie events).
|
| I absolutely would prefer that to the world we have now.
| I'm all on board, you don't have to convince me it's a
| good idea.
|
| But, that doesn't exist today. I _do_ prefer having the
| stupid annoying popup that gives me the option to allow
| only required cookies to having no choice at all.
|
| The new GDPR compliant cookie popups give me that option.
| It's a step up above not having the option at all.
| detaro wrote:
| See "do not track" for how that goes. Remember, people
| that do actively make the choice to design such a popup
| to trick you, they do not intend to use the solution that
| respects your interests best. And at the same time, it
| makes sense that legislation refrains from requiring
| specific technologies.
| twox2 wrote:
| I disagree. It's the over-regulation that calls for these
| pain in the ass implementations.
| twox2 wrote:
| Downvote all you want, but you're in denial. GDPR and the
| like are nothing more than "privacy theater". I work in
| this industry and know it very well. Cookie opt outs or
| forced opt-ins on publisher pages aren't helping anyone
| with anything. The whole thing is just a farce so that
| they can enforce this against bigger tech companies when
| they want to. They should just tax them outright and save
| us all the trouble.
| random5634 wrote:
| No kidding. The first sign is how intrusive it all is.
| The second sign is how ineffective it is at anything web
| / crime related people actually care about (normal
| people).
|
| On HN it's like - go ahead and let me cable company and
| cell phone company track / sell and target me on my
| browsing history (wildly intrusive), but random website
| doing pet necklaces, try to stay on top of all the popups
| you need to shove at your users (who will all say OK) so
| you can show your page.
|
| If you can't share the data you buy up the other
| companies into groups and then are just using it
| "yourself" etc.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Docker's implementation is instant if you accept, but takes
| an eternity if you only want essential cookies. That seems in
| violation of the ePrivacy directive which according to the
| official website [1] requires that you "Make it as easy for
| users to withdraw their consent as it was for them to give
| their consent in the first place."
|
| I guess it's for the courts to decide if requiring the same
| number of clicks but letting you wait for an eternity is
| equally easy, but I doubt it.
|
| 1: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
| katsura wrote:
| The problem is that it takes so long because they make a
| bunch of requests to the opt out endpoints of different
| services, which takes time. Of course, it is questionable
| why those requests are essential, but the point is that
| there is a reason to this madness.
| [deleted]
| wongarsu wrote:
| But why do they block user interaction while doing that?
| You can call those in the background.
|
| And why call an opt-out endpoint at all, after all there
| has to be a mechanism that prevents setting the cookie
| before the user sees the cookie banner. Just continue
| using that mechanism (e.g. gtag's consent default
| denied).
| lorenzfx wrote:
| I use an addon for Firefox which gets rid of all cookie banners
| [0]. No issues on docker.com either.
|
| [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-
| abou...
| aquir wrote:
| NoScript + uBlock Origin to the rescue!
| kawsper wrote:
| They are aware of it, I've contacted them multiple times about
| it, they just don't care.
| LeonM wrote:
| Docker (or anyone for that matter) should not use TrustARC.
|
| TrustARC is the most evil, dark pattern I have ever
| encountered. Opting out takes >10 clicks and then it displays a
| fake progress scanner for over 30 seconds to punish you for
| opting out (pro tip! just accepting all is instant!).
|
| GDPR is good, having a choice not to be tracked is good. But
| the pathetic way that websites try to fool you into handing
| over your data should be punished hard by the EU.
| staunch wrote:
| I believe the reason it's "Series B" after like 10 VC raises is
| that Docker, Inc recapitalized and basically wiped out existing
| shareholders (former employees, etc). I'm surprised there's not
| been a stockholder lawsuit, since they could've presumably sold
| the company for something and returned _some_ money to the prior
| stockholders.
| miohtama wrote:
| Funding rounds overflow after Z. It is known.
| brainzap wrote:
| And still a horrible advanced experience, the only thing the
| update does is change the UI.
| paxys wrote:
| Considering how entrenched Docker has been in global tech
| infrastructure for so many years, I automatically assumed that
| the company was worth billions already, but guess not. I wonder
| why they haven't been bought out by Microsoft or Google, if
| nothing else then just for the talent.
| tw04 wrote:
| >I wonder why they haven't been bought out by Microsoft or
| Google, if nothing else then just for the talent.
|
| Because they received an insane valuation years ago and
| probably aren't even worth break-even on their funding rounds.
| Google already has far more K8s knowledge internally than
| anyone at docker, so what would be their gain?
|
| MS did try to buy them back in 2016 but Docker pulled an Jerry*
| Yang and said no [1]. I don't see why MS would bother at this
| point, they are also headed down the k8s path, and anything
| they needed from an expertise perspective they likely already
| received through their partnership agreement [2].
|
| [1] https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/sources-
| microsoft-t...
|
| [2] https://www.docker.com/blog/docker-microsoft-partnership/
|
| *I incorrectly said Andrew Yang initially, my apologies for my
| bad memory and any confusion it may have caused. Thank you
| Hexcles for the correction.
| swyx wrote:
| i'm not up on my political references; what does "pull an
| Andrew Yang" mean?
| tw04 wrote:
| It has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Microsoft
| offered to acquire Yahoo for $44.6 billion dollars in 2008
| [1]. Jerry* Yang turned them down claiming the offer
| "substantially undervalued" the company. 8 years later they
| sold to Verizon for $5 billion [2].
|
| [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/yahoo-rejects-microsofts-bid/
|
| [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/07/25/ya
| hoo-s...
|
| *I incorrectly said Andrew Yang initially, my apologies for
| my bad memory and any confusion it may have caused. Thank
| you Hexcles for the correction.
| Hexcles wrote:
| I think that's Jerry Yang.
| tw04 wrote:
| _facepalm_ You are correct, I will update. That 's what I
| get for trying to remember names from 12 years ago.
| swyx wrote:
| loll i was like "oh no what did Andrew Yang do"... as an
| asian and non american i was a casual fan of his but
| kinda knew he had no chance in the primaries. still..
| maybe someday.. he's young
| rusk wrote:
| Ah hence the asterisk- I keep looking for a footnote!
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _Considering how entrenched Docker has been in global tech
| infrastructure for so many years_
|
| It is not entrenched at all, that's their problem. You can
| literally drop in Podman as a replacement and alias the command
| it it will "just work" - and Podman has some significant
| advantages in many environments/use cases. Docker, the company
| or the product, has no concrete barriers to entry to protect
| itself.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| It is obvious. This is a common pattern:
|
| 1. Offer open-source 100% free product that's absolutely ground
| breaking, unlike anything else.
|
| 2. Get a shitload of users and free PR machine gets rolling.
| Network effects kick in.
|
| 3. Go to investors with your active user count in excess of
| millions.
|
| 4. Investors go bonkers and their eyes swell up with all the
| ways they can exploit these addicted-to-free user base.
|
| 5. Company has trouble monetizing the users. Users are
| _pissed_.
|
| 6. We all wonder why they couldn't make billions.
|
| It just happened to Elastic search a couple of months ago when
| Amazon swiped the rug from under them. Good. This should be a
| lesson to all the companies that want to follow this pattern.
| Without Step 1, Docker would have had a much more difficult
| time to get traction and would have to compete on a level
| ground. So, they short circuit this competition by going full
| 100% free product route.
|
| I have zero empathy for these companies and their investors.
| Yajirobe wrote:
| > I have zero empathy for these companies and their
| investors.
|
| Wow, imagine being so hateful towards amazing open-source
| tools
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Open source tools were developed by the community and
| they're being harrassed now for monetization.
|
| How is that being hateful? I am looking out for the
| community in this sense.
| botswana99 wrote:
| They are not developed by a 'community'. The developers
| who build it are paid for by investors. Those investors
| want a huge return. It's not open source, it's bait and
| wait
| yagizdegirmenci wrote:
| Exactly, when you take a look at the mainstream "open-
| source" projects, you 'll see that those projects are all
| developed and maintained by some people who gets paid to
| do that. (e.g. Kubernetes, Firecracker, Gvisor,
| Bottlerocket, Podman)
| cutemonster wrote:
| Bait and wait and ... But what's step 3? Doesn't seem to
| work super well, hmm
| cheriot wrote:
| MySQL was acquired for 1B. Elastic is currently worth
| 10B. Redhat was acquired for 34B.
|
| What's not working well?
| zapita wrote:
| When open-source companies develop the majority of their
| product, haters will complain that they're "not open
| enough".
|
| When open-source companies invite more contributions from
| their community, haters will complain that they're
| "harassing the community for monetization".
|
| Simply put, some people will never be happy no matter
| what Docker does, and clearly you are one of them.
| cutemonster wrote:
| There's a silent majority size x100? that is happy with
| both approaches :-) look at Actix-web for example (when
| the founder quit), the happy but silent people were like
| 500x more than the a bit angry ones
| zemo wrote:
| being open-source is not a magical shield against criticism
| mrkeen wrote:
| > 5. Company has trouble monetizing the users. Users are
| pissed.
|
| Are we pissed?
|
| Docker hasn't started showing me ads or spewing MOTDs asking
| for donations.
|
| I haven't run into limitations that would have me purchase an
| upgrade.
|
| It hasn't been bought by a proprietary company that would
| make me start worrying about its licencing.
|
| It's a solid workhorse that's been at all my previous jobs
| and will be at all my future jobs for the foreseeable future.
|
| Most criticisms of it boil down to "there are other container
| technologies".
| mvzvm wrote:
| > when Amazon swiped the rug from under them. Good.
|
| > I have zero empathy for these companies and their
| investors.
|
| Are you trolling? Or do you want to see all amazing open
| source tech move behind closed doors and payed walled
| gardens?
| chuckSu wrote:
| Uh. Sure
| zapita wrote:
| Except Docker had already raised $10M _before_ launching. So
| they do not match your pattern.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Doesn't matter. $10M initial round to offer _free_ product
| to get users aboard.
|
| The key point is to get users addicted to free.
|
| Uber did this by undercutting the entire taxi industry _at
| a loss_. Ever wondered why your rides were so cheap!? Jio
| did the same in India, offer free unlimited internet on
| their phone service and wipe out the competition.
| koolba wrote:
| Who cares? Why not just milk their VCs for the free
| handouts and then move on like we do with every other VC
| funded unsustainable service.
| evanelias wrote:
| Their initial product was a platform-as-a-service
| (dotCloud), which wasn't free, aside from the early beta.
| Docker was essentially a pivot. I see no evidence that
| the company was founded as a nefarious scheme to get
| users addicted to a free product.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| You just made my point. The reason why I've never heard
| of dotCloud and literally everyone knows Docker.
|
| Docker is popular _because_ it's free. A lot of people
| would be upset if they take down their free hosting
| repositories.
|
| As a user, I want to pay for stuff to sustain companies.
| They can still be open source.
| evanelias wrote:
| If enough users had wanted to pay for dotCloud, they
| wouldn't have needed to pivot in the first place.
|
| My understanding (as a complete outsider) is that they
| raised a $10+ million series A for their PaaS. The PaaS
| then presumably wasn't successful enough to raise a
| subsequent round, but one of their technologies (Docker)
| was, despite the monetization path for it not being clear
| yet. So they pivoted to focus on that.
|
| I'm not sure what other outcome could plausibly happen in
| this scenario. If they stuck with the PaaS as their main
| focus, they would have gone out of business many years
| ago.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| > absolutely ground breaking, unlike anything else
|
| Containers existed for decades as a concept and for years on
| Linux (using lxc or VirtSquare and later nspawn)
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| It is true that the technologies existed for a while. I
| played with (Free)BSD jails and Solaris Zones long before
| Docker. Docker however made things "trivial" with the
| integration from container building, to public registry and
| docker-compose, which can make developer lives (depending
| on domain) much nicer. With jails and zones it was never as
| convenient.
| seniorThrowaway wrote:
| That was docker's real value add, making it easy and
| developer centric. Previous containerization technologies
| were heavily ops-centric. I come from an ops background
| and I remember thinking at the time that Docker was in
| some ways a developer workaround to barriers that ops set
| up to limit what they could do and protect them from
| themselves.
| fergie wrote:
| Elastic has a market cap of over $10billion. It is literally
| one of the most successful tech companies ever.
| amelius wrote:
| > Docker was estimated to be valued at over $1 billion, making
| it what is called a "unicorn company", after a $95 million
| fundraising round in April 2015.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker,_Inc.
| paxys wrote:
| The fact that they had a $95 million round in 2015 and then a
| $23 million round in 2021 leads me to believe their valuation
| is a lot lower now.
| dpkrjb wrote:
| I'd imagine that some of their valuation was based on the
| future success of docker swarm and what they would monetise
| around it
| LeSaucy wrote:
| Was there ever a technical reason why swarm never won out
| in the market? I've still got a couple of multi-node
| swarms that work great and are WAY easier to configure
| than k8s. I never really understood why it didn't take
| off.
| pram wrote:
| This is kind of reductive. You could ask the same for
| nomad, mesos, and lots of other things. It wasn't just
| swarm vs k8s
| cjaybo wrote:
| > It wasn't just swarm vs k8s
|
| I'm not seeing anything in their comment that would imply
| this.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| How is it reductive?
|
| I _do_ ask the same question for all those other systems,
| or the meta-question: "How is it that the bloated
| monstrosity of Kubernetes somehow became the de-facto
| container orchestration tool?"
|
| Is this just sysadmins buying themselves job security?
| maccard wrote:
| As someone who doesn't want to be a sysadmin, but wants
| to deploy applications to the cloud, the options are
| fairly limited. Kubernetes handles updates and scaling,
| networking between services, has managed offerings from
| all the major cloud providers, has an enormous ecosystem
| surrounding it, with many tools providing out of the box
| support for it.
|
| I could use docker swarm, or nomad, but I have to manage
| infrastructure, write my own integrations, manage the
| underlying hardware.
|
| Or I can run az aks create and be off to the races
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Sure, at this point it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: K8s
| is almost the only game in town because...it's almost the
| only game in town.
|
| But how did it get to that point? How did something so
| big and unwieldy that even billion-dollar cloud providers
| can't do upgrades on it properly (*cough* looking at you,
| EKS) become the go-to standard for running apps in
| containers?
| Terretta wrote:
| On the contrary, nobody was thinking of the sysadmins
| (until we injected the notion of Operators rather late).
|
| Devs chose K8s, I think the evangelism phrase was
| "developer dopamine". It felt like the Rails of DIY
| infra, where devs could inherit an opinioned pattern for
| doing n>1.
|
| There's still decades of resentment of devs being gated
| by IT.
| dbt00 wrote:
| Kubernetes had necessary features first, was more stable,
| and had many more options that enabled other teams to
| hang more features off the runtime. Flexibility on
| networking runtime and rbac both made a huge difference.
|
| That and, unfortunately, the cloud vendors could fully
| deploy k8s for free because swarm was a hybrid enterprise
| product.
| xahrepap wrote:
| I'm really sad that Swarm didn't take off.
|
| I used it extensively at a job for deploying production
| replicas for developers and full-integration testing (the
| plan was to eventually deploy prod the same way). It was
| SO nice to use. If you could use docker-compose, then
| docker-swarm was a natural next step.
|
| I can't remember the details (it's been a few years), but
| the biggest hangup I had was the default network "mesh"
| wasn't stable. But I was able to work around that by
| using a different implementation (i think it was the
| network mesh that came out of k8s at the time. Used
| etcd).
| KronisLV wrote:
| I'd also like to know more about this, since for smaller
| to medium sized deployments (think 1-100 nodes, maybe
| running between 1-1000 containers) Docker Swarm does seem
| like a pretty reasonable solution, especially with tools
| like Portainer ( https://www.portainer.io/ ) for a web
| based UI to manage it.
|
| I guess some of the reasons for the popularity of
| Kubernetes could be: - Kubernetes had
| Google as a big name behind it, so there was a lot of
| development resources put into it and eventually, lots of
| learning resources available, in addition to overall
| publicity; for example, i don't think anything like this
| exists for Docker Swarm
| https://www.katacoda.com/courses/kubernetes - in
| addition to the marketing and PR, it got picked up as a
| solution for many managed offerings by cloud hosts
| (managed Docker Swarm has almost none), a bit like what
| happened with serverless and AWS Lambda -
| Kubernetes allows for CRDs, has a pretty good API and has
| a large ecosystem built around it, to help manage its
| complexity (even distros like K3s and MicroK8s could be
| mentioned), as well as many to implement additional
| functionality (Istio + Kiali come to mind) - this
| further snowballed into turn-key offerings like Rancher
| and OpenShift that had financial incentives behind them,
| the idea of building a new distro that vendor locks
| clients into a particular company's offering, resources,
| support etc. - almost everyone (oftentimes
| incorrectly) believes that they need to be able to scale
| a lot and therefore chased the hype - FOMO further
| motivated a whole bunch of developers to use Kubernetes
| for their projects, instead of looking at the
| alternatives like Docker Swarm or Nomad - however,
| knowing Kubernetes can help to be more easily onboarded
| and to work with deployments in many different companies
| (except for when it isn't), the skills carry over nicely
|
| Of course, some of these may be my subjective views and
| not at all accurate.
|
| Personally, i think something between Docker Swarm, Nomad
| and K3s would be the sweet spot for containerized app
| deployments and orchestration, but personally i just like
| the Docker Compose manifests more than i do Kubernetes'
| and it feels like the popularity of Helm (or Kustomize)
| supports this line of reasoning.
|
| Ideally we wouldn't even need containers and something
| like FreeBSD jails with a user friendly API around it
| would be sufficient. But the popularity that Docker
| gained seems to highlight that perhaps something was
| missing from those older technologies.
| mst wrote:
| > the popularity that Docker gained seems to highlight
| that perhaps something was missing from those older
| technologies.
|
| I would put money on it being the Dockerfile and the
| developer UX around that.
|
| _I_ don 't honestly find it any more slick to use than
| e.g. FreeBSD jails, but I've lived in unix for long
| enough that that's because I was re-using lots of
| knowledge I already had.
|
| There's a comparison here to the fact that I'm perfectly
| comfortable writing SysV rc scripts (though BSD rc
| scripts are _vastly_ more pleasant to put together) but I
| 've watched enough people struggle their way to something
| that only mostly worked that I can see why for many
| people writing a systemd unit file instead is a vast
| improvement.
| p_l wrote:
| I think people really undervalue the base design of k8s
| that is responsible for the existence of CRDs and other
| related pluggability (even before TPR became CRDs).
|
| Pretty much every other option was more closed and with
| no extensibility, plus docker swarm was plagued (at least
| from my PoV) with stories of instability... and I dunno
| about others, but I and various people I talked with were
| burned with running docker in production, something that
| k8s nicely repackaged removing a lot of the things that
| were problematic.
|
| All this went into giving some serious base beyond
| marketing and PR - the closest I've seen from other
| players is classic Rancher and Nomad, and especially the
| latter seems much less capable.
| Sebguer wrote:
| Mirantis acquired Docker Enterprise, last year, so at the
| very least they lost whatever portion of their valuation
| was tied to that... though I can't imagine it was that
| much.
| raiyu wrote:
| This is the challenge with taking venture dollars, your
| interests aren't aligned.
|
| As a founder post Series B you probably have at least 10% of
| the business, that's a nice $400MM payout coming your way.
|
| But if the VC invested at a $1B price, picks up 10% and 80% of
| their return goes to their LPs they are personally pocketing
| much less.
|
| So it is advantageous for them to continue to shoot for the
| stars rather than sell short. Plus they have multiple bets
| going on at the same time while the founders only have one.
|
| So a $4B acquisition nets the founder $400MM, but and the VC
| firm is picking up $300MM of which 80% is going back to LPs,
| leaving $60MM for the partnership, perhaps split 3-7 ways, with
| maybe a kicker for the partner that sourced and led the
| investment.
|
| So let's say that's roughly $10MM going to the VC partner.
|
| Well you got one person staring at $400MM and another staring
| at $10MM.
|
| The interests aren't quite aligned.
|
| Also survivorship bias has us focused on companies that turned
| down acquisition offers and made it big, like Facebook, Google,
| Netflix, Snapchat, and so forth, but we don't really hear about
| the companies that turn down the offer and then fail to meet
| that acquisition price later, because that story just doesn't
| sell as well and the company fades into irrelevance so it isn't
| a piece that is picked up often.
|
| Certainly at the time it could have been a good decision given
| how new the market was and the potential upside, but obviously
| hindsight is 20/20.
| alexellisuk wrote:
| Interesting to see this called a Series B. Did Docker hit reset
| after the split?
|
| Here's a separate thread for "Docker Series B: More Fuel To Help
| Dev Teams Get Ship Done" - with a bit more info on what the plan
| is from Scott.
|
| Interesting to see this news on the same day that "We don't need
| Docker" was also on the front page of Hacker News. I think we
| absolutely still need Docker in 2021.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26478669
| boynamedsue wrote:
| Docker recapitalized in 2019 when they sold the enterprise
| business to Mirantis.
|
| So, yes Docker hit the reset button and wiped out all the
| existing shareholders.
| tsejerome97 wrote:
| As a 10+ years old company / YC company + significant amount of
| market share, I was expecting Docket to be like series D-F or
| even going public. Wondering if it is actually common for
| companies in CA to be like that...
| kentonv wrote:
| Looks like original Docker did Series E in 2017: https://www.
| crunchbase.com/organization/docker/company_finan...
|
| This is apparently "new/restructured Docker" which did Series
| A in 2019. From the footnote in the article:
| https://www.docker.com/press-release/docker-new-direction
|
| It does seem weird to just start the letters over like that,
| as if it's a new hot startup.
| grey-area wrote:
| Doing a series H might make investors think harder about
| why they need 8 rounds of funding over 12 years or so and
| still didn't manage to turn a profit.
| anthonyskipper wrote:
| They already did series-e and looped back around:
| https://www.crunchbase.com/funding_round/docker-series-e--a2...
| libria wrote:
| > "We don't need Docker" was also on the front page of Hacker
| News.
|
| I read it as a typical "We don't need [Complex Tool] because we
| don't have [Complex Tool Solutions] problems". Not trivializing
| it, I think those articles are valuable hype-free analysis of
| the latest tool-of-the-day. "They don't need Docker" and "We
| absolutely need Docker" are non-contradictory.
| TheGRS wrote:
| Yesterday was in a meeting discussing our build pipeline and
| we had this moment of introspection where we realized "wow,
| we do a completely containerized, micro-serviced app and it
| actually works really well for the most part". When Docker
| was very new I remember dealing with all manner of bizarre
| issues, mostly because the engineers just weren't used to how
| to use it yet. But if you have some decent idea of how to
| architect it then Docker is a huge boon IMO.
|
| People are also totally right to question why some new fancy
| tool is needed when the old way works. Its best to just view
| all these things as tools at your disposal rather than
| necessities.
| tyingq wrote:
| There's also, though, things like K8S not using Docker,
| podman becoming popular, etc. Neither is a definitive nail,
| but it does erode Docker's moat a bit.
| zapita wrote:
| K8S uses containerd which is the official Docker runtime.
| tyingq wrote:
| _" official Docker runtime"_
|
| Yes, though not produced by Docker and does not require
| Docker.
| mroche wrote:
| The difference being that Google has deprecated the
| shimming to Docker they had been doing with the "Docker"
| runtime to access containerd, so now it will go straight
| to the source by default.
|
| Red Hat OpenShift also switched from using Docker as its
| runtime with OpenShift 4 in 2019, though it was in favor
| of CRI-O rather than containerd.
| zapita wrote:
| All accurate. My point is that Kub deprecating the
| shimming does not affect Docker's popularly or market
| share either way. The existence of the shim was an
| implementation detail and Docker themselves have been
| encouraging the switch to containerd. They clearly want
| the Docker brand to be attached to developer-facing tools
| instead of a hidden piece of increasingly commoditized
| infrastructure.
|
| If a critical mass of kubernetes deployments switched
| from containerd to cri-o, that would be more problematic
| for Docker, but that seems unlikely to happen. Openshift
| to my knowledge is the only major kubernetes distribution
| not based on containerd. At this stage of the adoption
| cycle, cri-o is unlikely to be more than a distant second
| to containerd.
| vendiddy wrote:
| This 100%
|
| Better to think of these titles as "When you might need
| Docker" and "When you might not need Docker" so you can
| consider the tradeoffs rather than interpret it as a blanket
| statement, Docker is good/bad.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| There are two very different and kind of opposite "we don't
| need Docker" perspectives. One is that of the previous
| article-- "we don't need docker because we don't need
| containerized environments since our tooling produces a
| single binary which somehow has no dependencies,
| configuration, or data files, so there's nothing to
| containerize."
|
| The other is "we don't need Docker because we use tools like
| buildah, img, or kaniko to build OCI containers, our devs use
| podman, and we run this stuff in prod on a someone else's k8s
| PaaS that under the hood is backed by containerd."
| duxup wrote:
| A lot of those articles and posts are what I think of
| 'exploratory' someone doesn't want / need a thing,t hey
| present their way of doing things and we can all learn
| something from them... even if we don't do things like they
| do.
|
| God knows how much "don't need JavaScript" gets posted...
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Problem is the cargo-culting. A lot of startups don't have
| the complex problems
|
| Many are anticipating scaling problems they'll never have and
| wasting a lot of time, effort and money in that process
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Maybe, but it's such a balance. I'm finally getting into
| Kubernetes and after years of hearing how awful it was to
| get it going, I was shocked at how painless it was to stand
| up microk8s locally and sling Helm charts at it, get
| Jenkins generating agents on it, get metrics from it, etc.
| If I were deploying something to a cloud, I would
| absolutely do this approach with some k8s-as-a-service
| provider over rolling my own machine images or having to
| deal with remote controlling instances using something like
| Ansible.
|
| Yes, it would be possible to get sucked down a rabbit hole
| with over-emphasizing scaling, clustering, whatever
| upfront, but IMO these tools are now mature enough that
| it's a reasonable workflow even if you're _just_ deploying
| a single instance of a container with one statically-linked
| binary in it.
| neom wrote:
| Docker has Donnie Berkholz running product as of recently. I met
| him when he was at Redmonk and I was incredibly impressed by how
| sharp he is. Given they now have him as VP of Products, this cash
| injection is certainly more interesting as I'd expect him to do
| something useful with it.
| revskill wrote:
| I just wish Windows has built-in Docker so that i don't need to
| install anything like wsl,... Make docker run on bare-metal
| Windows is a huge improvement to my life !
|
| Why? WSL or VM is stupid because it costs around 5-6GB of RAM
| without doing anything.
| coolspot wrote:
| Just install WSL standalone edition. It runs on bare metal with
| no virtualization. Also GUI is much better and no tracking!
| revskill wrote:
| Thanks for the info. Could you give me more info on the link
| ?
|
| As i tried, wsl need a VM to run.
| bityard wrote:
| Well, Docker is a Linux technology. If you really need Docker
| that badly and can't take the overhead of a VM, then it sounds
| like you would be better off just running Linux like the rest
| of us. :)
| revskill wrote:
| Aha, i think so.
|
| But i need to spend some times with Windows softwares, too ;)
| mav3rick wrote:
| There is a container runtime / API to abstract this. Pretty
| sure Windows has equivalents of namespaces and cgroups.
| initplus wrote:
| The docker tools themselves ARE cross platform, but 99% of
| docker images in the wild are based off Linux, and have ELF
| binaries inside. Windows does not have equivalents for
| every single Linux system call. This is why you need WSL.
|
| You can build an image based on a Windows base image, and
| run it natively in Windows.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Which makes sense, containers aren't virtual machines.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Windows has containers, no need to use WSL.
| jjmarinho wrote:
| WSL is not even close to 5-6GB of RAM.
|
| My current instance of Ubuntu 20.04 is hogging around 1200MB
| while running rust-analyzer and some other devtools.
| trhway wrote:
| Somebody should just buy to them out of misery. Looks to be very
| cheap for the name recognition and some people.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Can't help but see this as bad for everything; to me it feels
| like if "curl" or "ssh" raises $23M. I would love for these
| people who work on these great tools to make lots of money, but
| what this means is that "now Docker has to figure out how to
| squeeze money out of this particular (admittedly good) tool in
| the chain" -- and the tool usually suffers.
| musicale wrote:
| This is exactly right. Docker is like lxc/lxd with some extra
| stuff (much of which I personally dislike.)
|
| It's not rocket science, and podman is obviously a drop-in
| replacement.
|
| The ssh example is good though - so much depends on ssh, yet
| how much do we invest in it?
| zapita wrote:
| Docker was created by a VC-backed startup in 2013. So they have
| had an incentive to make money from the very start. At no point
| was Docker _not_ financed by VC money.
| jrm4 wrote:
| That doesn't really address anything I said? Regardless of
| how it got started -- it simply feels like the type of tool
| that doesn't fit well with a high-profit model because it is
| so backend/developer oriented.
|
| I've said it before, if you're trying to be profitable, that
| means there _must_ be some part of it that is, "if you don't
| pay, you don't get it." What is that thing for Docker (a
| generally very open-sourcey thing), and will it be worth it?
| devmor wrote:
| Yeah, this is abjectly terrifying to me. A signal that I need
| to begin looking at alternatives to Docker.
| IceWreck wrote:
| Docker popularized containers, but it does nothing special.
| Podman is the closest alternative, but a lot of engines can
| run images from any oci registry like docker hub.
|
| Other engines you might wanna look at: rkt, lxc with an oci
| template, etc.
|
| Kubernetes with cri-o runs oci containers as well.
| sandstrom wrote:
| I'd pay for a pro version of macOS Docker Desktop that didn't peg
| the CPU at ~30% with no activity in the containers :)
| xeromal wrote:
| lol, docker recently consumed 22gb of ram on my desktop with no
| containers running. Windows 10 though
| m463 wrote:
| I think that's because macos has to run a VM to support docker.
|
| I figured apple would latch onto docker and get it running
| natively, but nobody over there thinks outside the apple
| ecosystem. It's all like the jackling house
|
| Wouldn't it be cool to say: FROM macos:10.13.4
| RUN xcode-build ...
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Should have went the SPAC route
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _should have went the SPAC route_
|
| Or issued Doggercoin
| abledon wrote:
| Thank god, someones gotta pay for the free container registry all
| my sideprojects depend on!
| bredren wrote:
| Have you tried GitHub packages?
| crazymax wrote:
| GitHub Packages Docker Registry (aka docker.pkg.github.com)
| is deprecated and will sunset this year. It's strongly
| advised to migrate to GitHub Container Registry instead.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Yes. Someones gotta pay for the free container registry all
| my sideprojects depend on!
| mvzvm wrote:
| You are all over this thread being snarky, and commenting
| in what seems to be bad faith. Please stop, this is not
| reddit.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I'm sorry if it came across this way. The snarky comment
| highlights pretty well that we magically expect almost
| without a second thought that GitHub is free.
|
| Support SourceHut and pay for hosting git if people want
| to break away from ostensibly free services. Or pay for
| Github. SourceHut is also open source.
| mvzvm wrote:
| In what way is Github not free?
| [deleted]
| mrkeen wrote:
| Apologies in advance for the snark:
|
| https://github.com/pricing
| oefrha wrote:
| Until GitHub Packages Docker Registry stops asking for
| authentication to pull public images, it might as well not
| exist to me. Have they resolved that?
| mr-karan wrote:
| GitHub Packages have an option to make the image as
| `public` or `private`. Public images can be pulled without
| auth (as the case should be).
| oefrha wrote:
| I don't see the option anywhere, nor can I locate an
| announcement of any related change, but I tried an old
| public repo of mine (which was impossible to pull without
| auth, so it didn't even work inside GitHub Actions) and
| it seems to work now. Gotta say the documentation and
| communication leave a lot to be desired.
|
| Edit: I guess I'm on grandfathered (?) GitHub Packages
| Docker Registry, instead of the newer GitHub Container
| Registry (which is still in beta?).
| bredren wrote:
| The messaging regarding the migration to GitHub container
| registry is confusing, there seems to be some delay or
| clear guidance on the migration atm.
| PurpleFoxy wrote:
| GitLab registry allows anon pulls from public projects.
| [deleted]
| cletus wrote:
| I really see this as trying to buy enough time for someone to
| rescue the investors, maybe the founders and definitely not the
| employees with an acquihire.
|
| Docker is a good example of a company that (IMHO) should never
| have raised so much capital. It just doesn't have the moat to
| justify the valuation.
|
| HN has posted several submissions (eg [1]). Containers aren't
| new. Anyone can do it. So where is the moat? Possibilities
| include orchestration (which they lost to Google's Kubernetes).
| There's no barrier to creating images or even having a public
| registry of images.
|
| It always seemed tike containers were just going to be another
| feature on cloud platforms. Don't get me wrong: I think
| containers are a really good technology, for building, testing,
| deployment and so on.
|
| Docker never had a clear value add and over the years has failed
| to develop one.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22244706
| qeternity wrote:
| While I am normally critical of the unicorn pizza-kitchen-on-
| wheels type of excess, I think this is only true in hindsight
| and has a lot to do with Docker lacking a commercially minded
| founder. Open source isn't a business model. There are very
| synergistic business models that go hand in hand with OSS but
| that distinction is important. Github does not really have a
| defensible moat. I think the network effects there are mostly
| trying to back-solve for its popularity. But it's just a good
| product that became synonymous with modern version control.
| Docker had similar potential, but needed more commercial
| creativity.
| cletus wrote:
| Github is a good comparison here because obviously anyone can
| run a Git server but Github did create a lot of value adds
| and the UI helped build a network effect for the ease os use,
| cloning, PRs and so on.
|
| What's more, Github became the engine for dependency
| management. Go springs to mind here. I actually thought this
| was a terrible system (eg putting repo owner names in import
| strings) but it speaks to ubiquity of Github.
|
| But what are Docker images? Maybe a few hundred lines of
| Dockerscript at the end of the day.
|
| Losing in orchestration I think was the obvious big fail. But
| they had an uphill battle here anyway because you really need
| to integrate such a thing with cloud platforms.
|
| I'm really not sure what Docker could've done differently
| here.
| qeternity wrote:
| > I'm really not sure what Docker could've done differently
| here.
|
| Completely agree, it's trickier than GitHub. But this is
| why founders of these companies can potentially make
| billions: if it were easy, everyone could do it.
|
| I think they realized the CI/CD potential far too late. In
| another universe you push to GitHub, Docker builds and
| tests your images and deploys to your provider of choice.
| Their potential was probably not directly tied to
| containers but tied to their position in the engineering
| process between commit and before deploy.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| > I'm really not sure what Docker could've done differently
| here.
|
| I think they should have realized orchestration was "the"
| thing for production much sooner. It's not like you can't
| integrate with cloud vendors on your own; there are plenty
| of managed service providers where you can get hybrid cloud
| solutions, Docker could have bet big on this.
|
| Instead they came with swarm, which was focused too much on
| self-managed "on-prem", while people really wanted
| something more complex, managed and with a healthy
| ecosystem of service providers.
|
| Docker got stuck with being a software vendor, but they
| should have pivoted to being a service provider much, much
| sooner.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I hope they work on Docker Swarm. "Docker compose" for multiple
| machines needs working on!
| dgellow wrote:
| Didn't they drop Swarm ~1 year ago when they sold their
| enterprise offering? I thought they decided to instead focus on
| k8s.
|
| All of this becomes so confusing.
| polyrand wrote:
| Now there's something called Swarm mode built directly into
| the main Docker engine. I think that was the "replacement" of
| the classic Docker Swarm.
| brodock wrote:
| So, who owns the "Docker Engine" ? Mirantis or Docker Inc?
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Mirantis
| Nullabillity wrote:
| That migration was way before the acquisition. The Mirantis
| deprecation is about Swarm Mode.
| dgellow wrote:
| All of this is so confusing...
| GordonS wrote:
| I'm still using Docker Swarm in production, and it's great! You
| write Compose files (which are succinct compared with k8s),
| with an optional smattering of just a few extra functions (such
| as for configs and secrets). You can easily specify how many
| replicas you want, constrain them to certain nodes with labels,
| use health checks for auto restarts etc.
|
| If you can write Compose files, you can do Docker Swarm - it's
| so wonderfully simple!
|
| I am increasingly nervous about Swarm support staying in Docker
| though, and plan to at least look into Nomad for my next
| project.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Your sentiment is precisely why I prefer Docker Swarm. I have
| heard good things about Nomad. I'm not sure if it's as
| simple, though.
| ghaff wrote:
| I believe that Swarm and the other enterprise-oriented pieces
| all went to Mirantis. Docker, the company, is now specifically
| oriented to developers.
| aejnsn wrote:
| This is correct. I really think the play by Mirantis is to
| let Docker Swarm die while maintaining contracts and selling
| those existing contracts on K8s moving forward. I found
| Docker UCP very troubling to work with.
| Alir3z4 wrote:
| I really love Docker Swarm, way way way simpler and easier to
| work with. So far having a 3 manager with 6 workers works
| flawlessly with not a single issue.
|
| I've started with 1 Manager/Worker only and grow from there to
| 3 managers/workers and later kept the 3 managers and added
| worker nodes to the cluster.
|
| It made me get into Docker even though for whatever reason I
| hate anything Docker related.
| 3np wrote:
| While it has way more bells and whistles than swarm, check out
| nomad if you haven't :)
| lordpankake wrote:
| Yep! Such a fantastic alternative to k8s for most cluster
| needs.
| ggregoire wrote:
| There are at least 10 alternatives to Docker listed in those
| comments. I can't imagine what someone relatively new to
| containerisation think about it. Is this the equivalence to
| "JavaScript fatigue" in the DevOps world?
|
| Anyway, happy Docker user here. It changed the way I develop and
| distribute Python applications. Took me like 2 hours to learn
| enough to be productive. I'm sure there are better alternatives
| but Docker just covers my needs, it's well documented and easy to
| get started, everybody knows it and every cloud platform supports
| it.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| I'm happy to see docker get a little more lifeline.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-16 23:01 UTC)