6 ms·

I've given up with Docker on mac. It's a complete joke that they even consider it out of beta. The windows version is faster but doesn't handle file change even

by dawnerd 10y ago

I've given up with Docker on mac. It's a complete joke that they even consider it out of beta. The windows version is faster but doesn't handle file change events yet (or something like that). I just said screw it and switched my dev machine over to Ubuntu.

contingencies 10y ago
Agreed. Forget usage leaks, Docker for Mac doesn't even work on my system, and five days later after reporting it, nobody cares. It used to work, many versions ago, but they've somehow broken it entirely between redesigning the UI 2-3 times and switching from VirtualBox (which worked) to OSX Virtualization (which so far doesn't). See https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/984 https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/984 In addition, they don't seem to care that the whole thing is useless in China - https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/28791 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/28791 - also after emailing, no response. I have contributed to Docker since very early days but am frankly not using it now because the project has for all intents and purposes entered a toxic-to-the-community stage where hype and marketing exceed capacity to resolve issues, total fails are occurring for me on all platforms, and AFAIK nobody in their over-funded San Franciscan office bubble seems to care. It's a typically arrogant startup: not listening to users, heading for a fall. It's like they've decided to re-invent downloads (badly), re-invent cross-platform hypervisors (badly), re-invent orchestration (badly), re-invent storage (badly) and roll it all up in branded glue. I can't help but wonder if an approach with broader applicability and longevity would segregate the OS (anything container or VM-like at any layer, from Erlang to BSD jails to diskless clusters), and environment paradigm (container-based, paravirtualization-based, bare metal) from the workload and truly enable infrastructure agnoticism by removing the dependency on a single shifting-sands component, and allowing people to A/B test identical workloads on disparate paradigm infrastructures. I tried a few years ago, it worked: http://stani.sh/walter/cims http://stani.sh/walter/cims
- dawnerd 10y ago
  What's frustrating is if you submit an issue it will eventually be closed or linked to someone else's issue that's unrelated. Usually, the solution is to uninstall and re-install the beta. You shouldn't have to uninstall or reboot every time the daemon crashes.
- friism 10y ago
  Do you have the support ticket ID? I can follow up.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    Nope, no response at all.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > they don't seem to care that the whole thing is useless in China You filed a GitHub issue on the docker repo about their infrastructure deployment. They kindly (and correctly) pointed out the better way to resolve the issue and you insulted them. Sorry you haven't heard a response to email. Hopefully that works in China too.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    Realistically, how they choose to divide their issue resolution is irrelevant except in terms of how much friction it causes with users and developers. From a consumer perspective, if you can't docker pull then docker is ~useless, so being a key software feature within the docker binary it's not unrealistic to expect the average person to report directly to docker on github. The fact we have to report fundamental issues that should never have passed basic testing in an extremely well funded company is the really amazing thing here. Even if they wish to maintain a separate issue resolution process via email, a better resolution would be "I have forwarded this to the email support team, please expect an email" (since github IDs all have email associated anyway, this should be easy). Right now they have ~maximum friction, and no response at all. You will be pleased to note that email works fine in China (obviously - otherwise how do you think global trade operates?), unless you use NSA/Google as your provider.
mrinterweb 10y ago
I haven't given up on Docker for Mac yet, but I could not agree more about them taking it out of beta. It is not ready for primetime yet. The shared volume driver, osxfs, is complete garbage in terms of performance. I use this solution as what I hope to be a temporary work around: https://github.com/EugenMayer/docker-sync https://github.com/EugenMayer/docker-sync.
ledgerdev 10y ago
No kidding, same experience here with docker for mac. Days wasted chasing down problems with a completely un-usable tool. Literally full stop critical bugs that are clear as day yet they release it and call it 1.0? Docker is ruining their reputation with this sort of garbage.

by dawnerd 10y ago

contingencies 10y ago

Agreed. Forget usage leaks, Docker for Mac doesn't even work on my system, and five days later after reporting it, nobody cares. It used to work, many versions ago, but they've somehow broken it entirely between redesigning the UI 2-3 times and switching from VirtualBox (which worked) to OSX Virtualization (which so far doesn't). See https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/984 https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/984 In addition, they don't seem to care that the whole thing is useless in China - https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/28791 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/28791 - also after emailing, no response. I have contributed to Docker since very early days but am frankly not using it now because the project has for all intents and purposes entered a toxic-to-the-community stage where hype and marketing exceed capacity to resolve issues, total fails are occurring for me on all platforms, and AFAIK nobody in their over-funded San Franciscan office bubble seems to care. It's a typically arrogant startup: not listening to users, heading for a fall. It's like they've decided to re-invent downloads (badly), re-invent cross-platform hypervisors (badly), re-invent orchestration (badly), re-invent storage (badly) and roll it all up in branded glue. I can't help but wonder if an approach with broader applicability and longevity would segregate the OS (anything container or VM-like at any layer, from Erlang to BSD jails to diskless clusters), and environment paradigm (container-based, paravirtualization-based, bare metal) from the workload and truly enable infrastructure agnoticism by removing the dependency on a single shifting-sands component, and allowing people to A/B test identical workloads on disparate paradigm infrastructures. I tried a few years ago, it worked: http://stani.sh/walter/cims http://stani.sh/walter/cims

dawnerd 10y ago
What's frustrating is if you submit an issue it will eventually be closed or linked to someone else's issue that's unrelated. Usually, the solution is to uninstall and re-install the beta. You shouldn't have to uninstall or reboot every time the daemon crashes.
friism 10y ago
Do you have the support ticket ID? I can follow up.
- contingencies 10y ago
  Nope, no response at all.
paulddraper 10y ago
> they don't seem to care that the whole thing is useless in China You filed a GitHub issue on the docker repo about their infrastructure deployment. They kindly (and correctly) pointed out the better way to resolve the issue and you insulted them. Sorry you haven't heard a response to email. Hopefully that works in China too.
- contingencies 10y ago
  Realistically, how they choose to divide their issue resolution is irrelevant except in terms of how much friction it causes with users and developers. From a consumer perspective, if you can't docker pull then docker is ~useless, so being a key software feature within the docker binary it's not unrealistic to expect the average person to report directly to docker on github. The fact we have to report fundamental issues that should never have passed basic testing in an extremely well funded company is the really amazing thing here. Even if they wish to maintain a separate issue resolution process via email, a better resolution would be "I have forwarded this to the email support team, please expect an email" (since github IDs all have email associated anyway, this should be easy). Right now they have ~maximum friction, and no response at all. You will be pleased to note that email works fine in China (obviously - otherwise how do you think global trade operates?), unless you use NSA/Google as your provider.

mrinterweb 10y ago

I haven't given up on Docker for Mac yet, but I could not agree more about them taking it out of beta. It is not ready for primetime yet. The shared volume driver, osxfs, is complete garbage in terms of performance. I use this solution as what I hope to be a temporary work around: https://github.com/EugenMayer/docker-sync https://github.com/EugenMayer/docker-sync.

ledgerdev 10y ago

No kidding, same experience here with docker for mac. Days wasted chasing down problems with a completely un-usable tool. Literally full stop critical bugs that are clear as day yet they release it and call it 1.0? Docker is ruining their reputation with this sort of garbage.