4 ms·

Don't know what all the fuss is about when essentially you're getting Docker for free?

by hackits 10y ago

rusher81572 10y ago
It is not about cost. It is about marketing and generating all the hype over something that clearly does not function properly. They act like they are laying golden eggs when in fact they are broken eggs.
- hackits 10y ago
  There is a reason why they call it the bleeding edge. It's up to you to evaluate the technology to see if it fits within your infrastructure. Calling docker out and saying it's broken when its a free product seems to be miss guided.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Free and broken are not mutually exclusive.
    - hackits 10y ago
      It nothing about that. The main point is the whole community bitching a moaning about software that in all intent and purposes is given away free without any contribution by the users. The source code of Docker is open source so why doesn't the guy go in there and contribute his time and or his own money to support the project that to him is so vital? No doubt the guys working on Docker are super smart guys, though they too have bill's to pay and lives to live. So if you want to see Docker improve how about contributing back and or supporting their efforts with extra funding. Maybe they will have the funds to bring on more full time developers to hunt those obscure bugs or add those features that everyone wants? Discussing and putting down the developer with article titles such as 'Sad state of docker' to me shows self entitled the community around these projects are.
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        Extra funding? Because $100 million isn't enough?
        hackits 10y ago
        $100 million isn't that much money for large teams.
      - andrewguenther 10y ago
        > given away free Except for, you know, the people who pay for it...https://www.docker.com/pricing https://www.docker.com/pricing > without any contribution by the users Then who are the over 1,000 contributors to the Docker repository? > supporting their efforts with extra funding I think they're doing just fine. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker/funding-rounds https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker/funding-round... > how self entitled the community around these projects are. As a member of the "self entitled" community, I see a lot of ignorance in this comment. The developers of Docker are not just the >100 employees of Docker Inc, but also the over 1,000 members community who have contributed to the Docker project. Frustration with Docker isn't about entitlement, it is about frustration with a governing body run by a for-profit company with $180 million of funding who has shown a pattern of favoring shiny new features over stability and left their own community to clean up the mess of bugs left in their wake. So no, I don't think the community is self-entitled, I think the community just wants to see the project they've worked so hard to help build be competently maintained.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        Opinions here are my own. > It nothing about that. The main point is the whole community bitching a moaning about software that in all intent and purposes is given away free > without any contribution by the users. I remember that Jessie did a talk where she said that something like 4/5 contributions to Docker are from people who don't work for Docker Inc. I was one of them (I spend most of my time contributing to runC now because there's less politics there). So your point is categorically invalid. > The source code of Docker is open source so why doesn't the guy go in there and contribute his time and or his own money to support the project that to him is so vital? Docker Inc does not operate Docker like a community project. Maintainers are elected behind closed doors, most of the maintainers work for Docker Inc, Docker Inc has a roadmap that the community does not have access to, maintainers of Docker will not merge code if it is not strictly inline with Docker Inc's roadmap, they openly attack distributions like RedHat and openSUSE for applying out-of-tree patches to Docker. > No doubt the guys working on Docker are super smart guys The community is also fairly clever too, especially considering that we outnumber the number of people working for Docker Inc.
  - andrewguenther 10y ago
    Docker isn't free for everyone. The Docker project is maintained by a for-profit company which sells enterprise support and services. They're getting more or less the same broken product we get for free. They just get to wait three months for a fix instead of six...
  - matthewmacleod 10y ago
    The cost or otherwise of Docker is totally orthogonal to whether or not it is a 'good', non-broken piece of software.
abrookewood 10y ago
That's terrible logic. Imagine if Google just decided to delete people's email randomly in Gmail ... because free.
- hackits 10y ago
  Are you paying for the service?
  - danso 10y ago
    You don't get Gmail ads when you're using Gmail?
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    Actually we do pay for "free". Why do you think "free" is used as a marketing strategy? Obviously there is a monetary benefit somewhere - or anyone attempting a "free" or even just a "low(er) price" strategy must be doing wrong. An example is Uber, which has just generated yet another billion dollar loss headline. Apart from the data collection model, what it does is it removes the incentive of others to enter that market and possibly create something better. And on an individual level, something can have a cost merely by existing - because I have top choose. And if I choose wrong I end up worse than where I could be. Imagine I was an evil guy from a Disney movie. My next project to annoy people might be to create an app that seems to work - but has a lot of very annoying flaws. However, I never mention the flaws (of course not), instead I go all out on my marketing and make a lot of claims to get people to use my evil software. I then sit back and with an evil laugh enjoy the frustration that I created a million times - the (Disney-level) evil scheme succeeded. I wasted lots of people's time; I may also have sabotaged other (non-evil) projects by taking users away from them, and I managed to raise the world-wide frustration level.
    - hackits 10y ago
      Unless you write a check out to them, then I classify that as being free. You're feeling that you're entitled to a service that you don't pay anything for.
jomamaxx 10y ago
It's an issue of credibility. I'd much rather pay for something that works than get something for free that doesn't.
- hackits 10y ago
  Somebody got it right.
  - flamethroeaway 10y ago
    So because docker is free it is worthless?
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      Nobody even hinted at this. The point is, if something doesn't work as claimed, it adds real 'cost' which is often much more than the relatively cheap cost of buying something that is more reliable. That it is free is almost irrelevant - the cost/benefit of implementation, training, reliability, support, and possibly 'savings' using it vis-a-vis other solutions probably far outweigh any price tag it might have. Apparently they launched a rev. with a bunch of problems - this is bad, and costly.
cyphar 10y ago
Kubernetes is also free software. So is Mesos. And Nomad. On the runtime side, rkt and runC are also free software. Just because something is free (and gratis) software doesn't mean that people cannot complain and suggest improvements. That's how all free software development has worked since day 0.

Don't know what all the fuss is about when essentially you're getting Docker for free?

by hackits 10y ago

Don't know what all the fuss is about when essentially you're getting Docker for free?

It is not about cost. It is about marketing and generating all the hype over something that clearly does not function properly. They act like they are laying golden eggs when in fact they are broken eggs.

hackits 10y ago
There is a reason why they call it the bleeding edge. It's up to you to evaluate the technology to see if it fits within your infrastructure. Calling docker out and saying it's broken when its a free product seems to be miss guided.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Free and broken are not mutually exclusive.
  - hackits 10y ago
    It nothing about that. The main point is the whole community bitching a moaning about software that in all intent and purposes is given away free without any contribution by the users. The source code of Docker is open source so why doesn't the guy go in there and contribute his time and or his own money to support the project that to him is so vital? No doubt the guys working on Docker are super smart guys, though they too have bill's to pay and lives to live. So if you want to see Docker improve how about contributing back and or supporting their efforts with extra funding. Maybe they will have the funds to bring on more full time developers to hunt those obscure bugs or add those features that everyone wants? Discussing and putting down the developer with article titles such as 'Sad state of docker' to me shows self entitled the community around these projects are.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Extra funding? Because $100 million isn't enough?
      - hackits 10y ago
        $100 million isn't that much money for large teams.
    - andrewguenther 10y ago
      > given away free Except for, you know, the people who pay for it...https://www.docker.com/pricing https://www.docker.com/pricing > without any contribution by the users Then who are the over 1,000 contributors to the Docker repository? > supporting their efforts with extra funding I think they're doing just fine. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker/funding-rounds https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker/funding-round... > how self entitled the community around these projects are. As a member of the "self entitled" community, I see a lot of ignorance in this comment. The developers of Docker are not just the >100 employees of Docker Inc, but also the over 1,000 members community who have contributed to the Docker project. Frustration with Docker isn't about entitlement, it is about frustration with a governing body run by a for-profit company with $180 million of funding who has shown a pattern of favoring shiny new features over stability and left their own community to clean up the mess of bugs left in their wake. So no, I don't think the community is self-entitled, I think the community just wants to see the project they've worked so hard to help build be competently maintained.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      Opinions here are my own. > It nothing about that. The main point is the whole community bitching a moaning about software that in all intent and purposes is given away free > without any contribution by the users. I remember that Jessie did a talk where she said that something like 4/5 contributions to Docker are from people who don't work for Docker Inc. I was one of them (I spend most of my time contributing to runC now because there's less politics there). So your point is categorically invalid. > The source code of Docker is open source so why doesn't the guy go in there and contribute his time and or his own money to support the project that to him is so vital? Docker Inc does not operate Docker like a community project. Maintainers are elected behind closed doors, most of the maintainers work for Docker Inc, Docker Inc has a roadmap that the community does not have access to, maintainers of Docker will not merge code if it is not strictly inline with Docker Inc's roadmap, they openly attack distributions like RedHat and openSUSE for applying out-of-tree patches to Docker. > No doubt the guys working on Docker are super smart guys The community is also fairly clever too, especially considering that we outnumber the number of people working for Docker Inc.
- andrewguenther 10y ago
  Docker isn't free for everyone. The Docker project is maintained by a for-profit company which sells enterprise support and services. They're getting more or less the same broken product we get for free. They just get to wait three months for a fix instead of six...
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  The cost or otherwise of Docker is totally orthogonal to whether or not it is a 'good', non-broken piece of software.

abrookewood 10y ago

That's terrible logic. Imagine if Google just decided to delete people's email randomly in Gmail ... because free.

hackits 10y ago
Are you paying for the service?
- danso 10y ago
  You don't get Gmail ads when you're using Gmail?
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Actually we do pay for "free". Why do you think "free" is used as a marketing strategy? Obviously there is a monetary benefit somewhere - or anyone attempting a "free" or even just a "low(er) price" strategy must be doing wrong. An example is Uber, which has just generated yet another billion dollar loss headline. Apart from the data collection model, what it does is it removes the incentive of others to enter that market and possibly create something better. And on an individual level, something can have a cost merely by existing - because I have top choose. And if I choose wrong I end up worse than where I could be. Imagine I was an evil guy from a Disney movie. My next project to annoy people might be to create an app that seems to work - but has a lot of very annoying flaws. However, I never mention the flaws (of course not), instead I go all out on my marketing and make a lot of claims to get people to use my evil software. I then sit back and with an evil laugh enjoy the frustration that I created a million times - the (Disney-level) evil scheme succeeded. I wasted lots of people's time; I may also have sabotaged other (non-evil) projects by taking users away from them, and I managed to raise the world-wide frustration level.
  - hackits 10y ago
    Unless you write a check out to them, then I classify that as being free. You're feeling that you're entitled to a service that you don't pay anything for.

jomamaxx 10y ago

It's an issue of credibility. I'd much rather pay for something that works than get something for free that doesn't.

hackits 10y ago
Somebody got it right.
- flamethroeaway 10y ago
  So because docker is free it is worthless?
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    Nobody even hinted at this. The point is, if something doesn't work as claimed, it adds real 'cost' which is often much more than the relatively cheap cost of buying something that is more reliable. That it is free is almost irrelevant - the cost/benefit of implementation, training, reliability, support, and possibly 'savings' using it vis-a-vis other solutions probably far outweigh any price tag it might have. Apparently they launched a rev. with a bunch of problems - this is bad, and costly.

cyphar 10y ago

Kubernetes is also free software. So is Mesos. And Nomad. On the runtime side, rkt and runC are also free software. Just because something is free (and gratis) software doesn't mean that people cannot complain and suggest improvements. That's how all free software development has worked since day 0.