4 ms·
> 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 th
by 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 agoThat 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 agoDocker 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.