2 ms·

Here is the oldest copy of the Docker website on Wayback Machine, from the month that Docker was first released: https://web.archive.org/web/20130323002800/http

Here is the oldest copy of the Docker website on Wayback Machine, from the month that Docker was first released: https://web.archive.org/web/20130323002800/http://docker.io/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130323002800/http://docker.io/ The title is "Docker: the Linux container runtime." So, your assertion that "Docker is a developer tool, not a container runtime" is simply false. The text clearly describes deployment of docker containers as much more than simple development tools: "docker can run on any x64 machine with a modern linux kernel - whether it's a laptop, a bare metal server or a VM. This makes it perfect for multi-cloud deployments." That sounds like production deployment to me. Whether or not you like Docker, or think it works well in production, is immaterial to this. Docker is a container runtime, it is intended for production deployment, and that means it is not merely a development tool as you claimed. The first website Docker ever published is proof of Docker's intentions. It was intended as a production tool from the very beginning.

orf 10y ago
You're bring incredibly hostile over something very trivial. Docker wasn't 'recommended' for production until 1.0: https://blog.docker.com/2014/06/its-here-docker-1-0/ https://blog.docker.com/2014/06/its-here-docker-1-0/
- twblalock 10y ago
  Docker was always intended to run in production. That was the goal from the beginning. The developers recommended against running it in production before the 1.0 release because it was in beta. Developers of many products that are intended to run in production do the same thing before the first stable version is released. That is not the same thing as saying that Docker was never intended to be used in production, and was only ever intended to be a development tool. That's the view I'm arguing against, and it's not trivial -- it denies the fundamental purpose of Docker.
  - throwaway_exer 10y ago
    > Whether or not you like Docker, or think it works well in production, is immaterial to this. Actually I don't agree with that at all. Saying something is or will be ready for production with nothing to back that statement up is marketing, not reality. A similar example is Virtualbox. It's intended as a production VM, but I don't know anybody who does that. They use it for development and deploy to a different environment. Intentions are irrelevant when it just doesn't work reliably in reality.
- eitland 10y ago
  > You're bring incredibly hostile over something very trivial. Are you sure you replied to the correct post? twblalock seems to me to be the calm but persistent voice in this detached subtread.

orf 10y ago

You're bring incredibly hostile over something very trivial. Docker wasn't 'recommended' for production until 1.0: https://blog.docker.com/2014/06/its-here-docker-1-0/ https://blog.docker.com/2014/06/its-here-docker-1-0/

twblalock 10y ago
Docker was always intended to run in production. That was the goal from the beginning. The developers recommended against running it in production before the 1.0 release because it was in beta. Developers of many products that are intended to run in production do the same thing before the first stable version is released. That is not the same thing as saying that Docker was never intended to be used in production, and was only ever intended to be a development tool. That's the view I'm arguing against, and it's not trivial -- it denies the fundamental purpose of Docker.
- throwaway_exer 10y ago
  > Whether or not you like Docker, or think it works well in production, is immaterial to this. Actually I don't agree with that at all. Saying something is or will be ready for production with nothing to back that statement up is marketing, not reality. A similar example is Virtualbox. It's intended as a production VM, but I don't know anybody who does that. They use it for development and deploy to a different environment. Intentions are irrelevant when it just doesn't work reliably in reality.
eitland 10y ago
> You're bring incredibly hostile over something very trivial. Are you sure you replied to the correct post? twblalock seems to me to be the calm but persistent voice in this detached subtread.