Uh oh - I like Docker, but this a terrible change that could potentially signal them going in a very wrong direction. It should be clear to them that no one wants this, and there are lots of good...
Uh oh - I like Docker, but this a terrible change that could potentially signal them going in a very wrong direction. It should be clear to them that no one wants this, and there are lots of good alternatives that I'm sure people won't think twice about switching to if they go any further.
There are a number of suggested alternatives in the HN comments and the GitHub issue comments; have you used any of those that you'd recommend as a good alternative?
There are a number of suggested alternatives in the HN comments and the GitHub issue comments; have you used any of those that you'd recommend as a good alternative?
I love Docker the technology (use it both at home and at work) but I'm deeply skeptical of Docker the company, and this looks like the beginning of what I feared would happen. Docker the...
I love Docker the technology (use it both at home and at work) but I'm deeply skeptical of Docker the company, and this looks like the beginning of what I feared would happen.
Docker the technology has become the de-facto standard for containerization on Linux. For that technology to be as successful as it has been, it must be open-source and freely available.
Meanwhile, Docker the company has a quarter of a billion dollars of VC funding, and a couple hundred employees getting paid Silicon Valley salaries. The free lunch can't last forever. Investors are going to demand they monetize somehow. They're going to have to walk a very fine line between keeping enough of the "core" functionality free to not alienate current users while adding enough value in "enterprise" Docker to get paying customers in the door.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if a year from now, they'd been acquired by Microsoft. There's some serious opportunities to cough leverage corporate synergy cough by buying both Docker and GitHub and integrating them with Azure.
there should be an easy way to look up the business model of an organization/company and how much VC they received. Then it would be easy to just not rely on them in the first place because you...
there should be an easy way to look up the business model of an organization/company and how much VC they received. Then it would be easy to just not rely on them in the first place because you can be sure that it'll take a bad turn because they want to monetize.
Ehh, I think that's unlikely. Google's NIH is pretty strong (for good reasons, in my mind - their monorepo plus stringent code quality standards makes it difficult to integrate 3rd party code like...
Ehh, I think that's unlikely. Google's NIH is pretty strong (for good reasons, in my mind - their monorepo plus stringent code quality standards makes it difficult to integrate 3rd party code like this). They've also got a long history of containerization, even before Docker existed, since the core APIs that make containers possible have been baked into Linux for years.
Kubernetes already supports rkt, which is a standards-based alternative to Docker. If the move away from Docker accelerates I think it's more likely that rkt becomes the default container runtime for k8s, and Docker is cut out of the loop entirely.
This is kind of alarming. I'm reading the comments on Hacker News and the initial comment was that they did it to improve user experience. So does this mean they're only going to be focusing on...
This is kind of alarming. I'm reading the comments on Hacker News and the initial comment was that they did it to improve user experience. So does this mean they're only going to be focusing on Mac and windows specifically? It kind of makes me feel like they're going to leave Linux behind and slack on it. Hopefully not but suspicious. It kind of seems like a way to collect user information. I think they are doing it on Windows and Mac because those have the proprietary software so that is where the money is.
I think it's because on Linux everyone installs using their distro's package manager, which builds from source. I very, very highly doubt they'll move away from Linux any time soon. Docker...
I think it's because on Linux everyone installs using their distro's package manager, which builds from source.
I very, very highly doubt they'll move away from Linux any time soon. Docker primarily targets server applications, which usually run on Linux servers. They would basically be leaving a very large portion of their user base.
Neglecting it would basically be shooting themselves in the head though - Linux is the primary platform that Docker should be targeting. The only reason the store thing doesn't apply to Linux is...
Neglecting it would basically be shooting themselves in the head though - Linux is the primary platform that Docker should be targeting.
The only reason the store thing doesn't apply to Linux is because no one on Linux downloads Docker from the website. The majority of Linux Docker installs are servers running automated scripts doing an apt install docker.
I am not sure why you keep going into detail about package managers like you're the only one who knows what they are.. You have said it across two comments now. and if you really want to get...
I am not sure why you keep going into detail about package managers like you're the only one who knows what they are.. You have said it across two comments now. and if you really want to get technical, what you wrote in that code block isn't necessarily an automated script.
should be and what companies actually do because it makes money are two different things. This is clearly with the intent to make money.
And people definitely pull down Docker with things like wget.. so in a way, people do download it from the site
We will see what happens. It's clear that part of their intent is to focus on Mac and windows because that is where the money is.
I think you are overreacting, the comment you reply to doesn't really go into that much detail. "We want to improve user experience." is a hollow phrase and doesn't really explain why a user login...
I think you are overreacting, the comment you reply to doesn't really go into that much detail.
"We want to improve user experience." is a hollow phrase and doesn't really explain why a user login is necessary to download a program, in fact, it worsens user experience because it adds an extra step to the installation process.
I'd say a more likely explanation would be that they are only adding this step for MS and Mac because first of all, docker on these platforms looks very different because the containers cannot run natively and theres a whole GUI application attached etc. (so I've read, haven't used it myself). Second, on MS and Mac there are not as many (maybe none at all?) alternatives to docker, while on linux there are many alternatives people can go to. So making people sign in - and nobody likes that - would drive linux users away from docker, but Mac and Windows users don't have a choice and have to accept it.
Uh oh - I like Docker, but this a terrible change that could potentially signal them going in a very wrong direction. It should be clear to them that no one wants this, and there are lots of good alternatives that I'm sure people won't think twice about switching to if they go any further.
There are a number of suggested alternatives in the HN comments and the GitHub issue comments; have you used any of those that you'd recommend as a good alternative?
I haven't tried any, but rkt looks interesting and seems to support Docker images.
Gotcha, thanks!
I love Docker the technology (use it both at home and at work) but I'm deeply skeptical of Docker the company, and this looks like the beginning of what I feared would happen.
Docker the technology has become the de-facto standard for containerization on Linux. For that technology to be as successful as it has been, it must be open-source and freely available.
Meanwhile, Docker the company has a quarter of a billion dollars of VC funding, and a couple hundred employees getting paid Silicon Valley salaries. The free lunch can't last forever. Investors are going to demand they monetize somehow. They're going to have to walk a very fine line between keeping enough of the "core" functionality free to not alienate current users while adding enough value in "enterprise" Docker to get paying customers in the door.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if a year from now, they'd been acquired by Microsoft. There's some serious opportunities to cough leverage corporate synergy cough by buying both Docker and GitHub and integrating them with Azure.
there should be an easy way to look up the business model of an organization/company and how much VC they received. Then it would be easy to just not rely on them in the first place because you can be sure that it'll take a bad turn because they want to monetize.
Google seems more likely to me. Google's not just going to let Microsoft have the yin to Kubernetes' yang.
Ehh, I think that's unlikely. Google's NIH is pretty strong (for good reasons, in my mind - their monorepo plus stringent code quality standards makes it difficult to integrate 3rd party code like this). They've also got a long history of containerization, even before Docker existed, since the core APIs that make containers possible have been baked into Linux for years.
Kubernetes already supports rkt, which is a standards-based alternative to Docker. If the move away from Docker accelerates I think it's more likely that rkt becomes the default container runtime for k8s, and Docker is cut out of the loop entirely.
This is kind of alarming. I'm reading the comments on Hacker News and the initial comment was that they did it to improve user experience. So does this mean they're only going to be focusing on Mac and windows specifically? It kind of makes me feel like they're going to leave Linux behind and slack on it. Hopefully not but suspicious. It kind of seems like a way to collect user information. I think they are doing it on Windows and Mac because those have the proprietary software so that is where the money is.
I think it's because on Linux everyone installs using their distro's package manager, which builds from source.
I very, very highly doubt they'll move away from Linux any time soon. Docker primarily targets server applications, which usually run on Linux servers. They would basically be leaving a very large portion of their user base.
They're not going to leave it, but I can see them neglecting it
Neglecting it would basically be shooting themselves in the head though - Linux is the primary platform that Docker should be targeting.
The only reason the store thing doesn't apply to Linux is because no one on Linux downloads Docker from the website. The majority of Linux Docker installs are servers running automated scripts doing an
apt install docker.I am not sure why you keep going into detail about package managers like you're the only one who knows what they are.. You have said it across two comments now. and if you really want to get technical, what you wrote in that code block isn't necessarily an automated script.
should be and what companies actually do because it makes money are two different things. This is clearly with the intent to make money.
And people definitely pull down Docker with things like wget.. so in a way, people do download it from the site
We will see what happens. It's clear that part of their intent is to focus on Mac and windows because that is where the money is.
I think you are overreacting, the comment you reply to doesn't really go into that much detail.
"We want to improve user experience." is a hollow phrase and doesn't really explain why a user login is necessary to download a program, in fact, it worsens user experience because it adds an extra step to the installation process.
I'd say a more likely explanation would be that they are only adding this step for MS and Mac because first of all, docker on these platforms looks very different because the containers cannot run natively and theres a whole GUI application attached etc. (so I've read, haven't used it myself). Second, on MS and Mac there are not as many (maybe none at all?) alternatives to docker, while on linux there are many alternatives people can go to. So making people sign in - and nobody likes that - would drive linux users away from docker, but Mac and Windows users don't have a choice and have to accept it.
Some are saying that "user experience" is just their excuse for monetization; can't really be sure though.
Yep I'd expect a proper explanation on how exactly it improves UX. This sentence alone doesn't carry any meaning at all.
HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17804916
Windows direct link: https://download.docker.com/win/stable/Docker%20for%20Windows%20Installer.exe