7 ms·

Unfortunately there is no way to justify a unicorn valuation if all that you have as an asset is an open source file format. Consider Vagrant -- like Docker, i

Unfortunately there is no way to justify a unicorn valuation if all that you have as an asset is an open source file format. Consider Vagrant -- like Docker, it's essentially a wrapper around other people's facilities and libraries. Mitchell and co appear to be trying to escape the trap by moving into nearby areas of real value, but there's no meaningful way to monetize Vagrant no matter how popular it is.

kordless 10y ago
> Unfortunately there is no way to justify a unicorn valuation Then it is indeed unfortunate that Docker is building infrastructure code which is tainted by the game theory surrounding the need for a unicorn valuation. Maybe that's the problem, instead of Docker itself.
- sjellis 10y ago
  That is exactly the problem. Linux containerisation is done by building tooling that uses kernel-level features. You don't need a start-up with millions in VC funding to implement the basic feature-set. At the other end of the complexity scale, both flatpak and systemd-nspawn are more specialist containerisation tools, which are each largely the product of just one person.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Docker itself is part of that problem, not separate to it. They willingly accepted almost $200 million in venture capital. We all know what the VC game is. If they can't turn that $200M into a $5B+ exit, they lost.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If they can't turn that $200M into a $5B+ exit, they lost. Well, the VCs lost. Presumably, the people at Docker -- including the people who would do fantastically well with an exit that also made VCs happy -- are drawing paychecks, in some cases substantial ones, and will have in many cases done tolerably well (rather than have "lost") if no VC-friendly exit ever occurs.
wstrange 10y ago
I wonder if the Docker Hub could be their monetization vehicle. They become the "github" of the container world. It may not justify the valuation they want.. which is another issue.
- cyphar 10y ago
  I believe that their business model is providing a proprietary fork of the Docker engine (along with a bunch of other proprietary tooling) to enterprises as well as support for it. I won't lie, it really bothers me that code I've helped write is being used in proprietary software.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    Then don't contribute to projects whose license you don't agree with?
    - cyphar 10y ago
      Personally I make all of the projects I make GPLv3-or-later. However, certain projects are of signficiant importance to the free software community that I consider the benefits to free software to outweigh the potential drawbacks by proprietary forks. Unfortunately, it still makes me feel unhappy about people taking my work and forking it under a proprietary license.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    I've written about this before: http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-community-and-enterprise-software/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-... TL;DR is that we have a lot of corporate open source now for infrastructure, but the golden age OSS end products people hoped for in the 90's/00's never really happened.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      Note: "Open Source" does not have a philosophy[1]. The free software movement does (it has a philosophy based on software freedom), but the "open source" movement does not discuss any of the ethical reasons why users should have freedom (it only discusses practical issues). Personally I think that the "open source" split is one of the reasons that the state of free software is so worrying today. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
djsumdog 10y ago
Do you remember when open source meant people just working on stuff for fun and trying to provide free as in speech alternatives to pay crap? I feel like this is just another step into the corporate OSS world which is a far departure of what a lot of the original OSS architects envisioned. Trying to monetize OSS often leads to rushed features and bad decisions like in most traditional non-OSS/enterprise products. If you strip off the polish and the fancy website, you should still have a usable, well documented thing that people need. That may also be a product you can sell support for or host, but it doesn't have to be. Unfortunately, there aren't as many grants and not as much developer free time to go around anymore.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  I'm not sure OSS ever meant that: Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. What they don't mention is that, when every recipient of the software is free to redistribute it and compete against you, as much as you can rapidly becomes zero (or, at most, just enough to cover the cost of the most-efficient distributor), since free competition drives prices down to the marginal production cost.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      Except of course, that the business model of free software is generally support-license based. Yes, someone can take your software and provide support instead of you but they usually are not as experienced as you with what you created. If they are, you should hire them. Companies make money charging for free software all the time, and I really wish we would stop having to go through this discussion every time that free software shows up as a point. Companies have been making money from free software for more than 20-30 years at this point, and none of it required taking away the freedom of their end-users.

kordless 10y ago

> Unfortunately there is no way to justify a unicorn valuation Then it is indeed unfortunate that Docker is building infrastructure code which is tainted by the game theory surrounding the need for a unicorn valuation. Maybe that's the problem, instead of Docker itself.

sjellis 10y ago
That is exactly the problem. Linux containerisation is done by building tooling that uses kernel-level features. You don't need a start-up with millions in VC funding to implement the basic feature-set. At the other end of the complexity scale, both flatpak and systemd-nspawn are more specialist containerisation tools, which are each largely the product of just one person.
cookiecaper 10y ago
Docker itself is part of that problem, not separate to it. They willingly accepted almost $200 million in venture capital. We all know what the VC game is. If they can't turn that $200M into a $5B+ exit, they lost.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > If they can't turn that $200M into a $5B+ exit, they lost. Well, the VCs lost. Presumably, the people at Docker -- including the people who would do fantastically well with an exit that also made VCs happy -- are drawing paychecks, in some cases substantial ones, and will have in many cases done tolerably well (rather than have "lost") if no VC-friendly exit ever occurs.

wstrange 10y ago

I wonder if the Docker Hub could be their monetization vehicle. They become the "github" of the container world. It may not justify the valuation they want.. which is another issue.

cyphar 10y ago
I believe that their business model is providing a proprietary fork of the Docker engine (along with a bunch of other proprietary tooling) to enterprises as well as support for it. I won't lie, it really bothers me that code I've helped write is being used in proprietary software.
- pavlov 10y ago
  Then don't contribute to projects whose license you don't agree with?
  - cyphar 10y ago
    Personally I make all of the projects I make GPLv3-or-later. However, certain projects are of signficiant importance to the free software community that I consider the benefits to free software to outweigh the potential drawbacks by proprietary forks. Unfortunately, it still makes me feel unhappy about people taking my work and forking it under a proprietary license.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  I've written about this before: http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-community-and-enterprise-software/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-... TL;DR is that we have a lot of corporate open source now for infrastructure, but the golden age OSS end products people hoped for in the 90's/00's never really happened.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    Note: "Open Source" does not have a philosophy[1]. The free software movement does (it has a philosophy based on software freedom), but the "open source" movement does not discuss any of the ethical reasons why users should have freedom (it only discusses practical issues). Personally I think that the "open source" split is one of the reasons that the state of free software is so worrying today. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

djsumdog 10y ago

Do you remember when open source meant people just working on stuff for fun and trying to provide free as in speech alternatives to pay crap? I feel like this is just another step into the corporate OSS world which is a far departure of what a lot of the original OSS architects envisioned. Trying to monetize OSS often leads to rushed features and bad decisions like in most traditional non-OSS/enterprise products. If you strip off the polish and the fancy website, you should still have a usable, well documented thing that people need. That may also be a product you can sell support for or host, but it doesn't have to be. Unfortunately, there aren't as many grants and not as much developer free time to go around anymore.

bluejekyll 10y ago
I'm not sure OSS ever meant that: Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. What they don't mention is that, when every recipient of the software is free to redistribute it and compete against you, as much as you can rapidly becomes zero (or, at most, just enough to cover the cost of the most-efficient distributor), since free competition drives prices down to the marginal production cost.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    Except of course, that the business model of free software is generally support-license based. Yes, someone can take your software and provide support instead of you but they usually are not as experienced as you with what you created. If they are, you should hire them. Companies make money charging for free software all the time, and I really wish we would stop having to go through this discussion every time that free software shows up as a point. Companies have been making money from free software for more than 20-30 years at this point, and none of it required taking away the freedom of their end-users.