11 ms·

Moby: An open-source project to advance containerization

209 points by craneca0 9y ago

educar 9y ago
Can someone do a eli5 ? I don't understand what the product is.
- 4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
  This is github.com/docker/docker with a note added on top of the README. For now you have to watch the DockerCon keynote to understand; it's intended as a "common assembly line for container systems".
  - deizel 9y ago
    The new README[0] is in a pull request[1]. [0]: https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/moby/README.md https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/moby/README.md [1]: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  AFAIK they want to spin out the reusable components off Docker (more than already done in libcontainer), including the code responsible for storage volumes, networking, etc. Basically, make all the building blocks of Docker available as a library, with some framework to use to connect them. Probably the Docker project would become the blessed customer of this new framework. I can't really see rkt, snap, OpenShift adopting this technology, though. Edit: as many of the things they want this framework to do belong to orchestration (if there are several containers involved--they often are), this might also look like a pinch at Kubernetes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tjfontaine 9y ago
I can't stop reading this as Mooby -- the golden calf. http://kevin-smith.wikia.com/wiki/Mooby_the_Golden_Calf http://kevin-smith.wikia.com/wiki/Mooby_the_Golden_Calf
chatmasta 9y ago
wtf? So the docker project is now "moby"? And I have no idea what the major changes are? How is this going to affect my usage of docker? The readme is incredibly confusing and lists no concrete features, especially none that justify reorganizing the entire docker project so drastically. It took me 5 minutes just to realize that github.com/docker/docker now redirects to github.com/moby/moby. Is this really necessary? Seems like it's just going to create tons of confusion.
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  It might be temporary as they split the UI (the cli tool docker) and the new moby library. Seems like a move made in a rush. It would have been better to spin out the dependencies of docker into moby instead of moving the project back and forth. Agreed that it is very confusing at this stage.
  - kasabali 9y ago
    > Seems like a move made in a rush. You've just summarized everything Docker Inc. does.
- mdekkers 9y ago
  Seems like it's just going to create tons of confusion. When was the whole Docker circus not confusing?
- liveoneggs 9y ago
  creating confusion was always the point
pzduniak 9y ago
I was pretty sure something was broken when I was browsing Docker docs and suddenly I ended up in a moby/moby repo.
willejs 9y ago
So, their breaking up the monolith? Hold on to your hat!
deizel 9y ago
As I understand it (though I could be wrong) - this repository (in relation to the old one) is intended to be a parent. Rather than having just the Docker engine, it will coordinate docker, swarmkit, infrakit, linuxkit in a single project. These will be swappable, so for example you could a) swap swarmkit for Kubernetes, b) swap linuxkit for Debian, c) swap infrakit with Terraform. Like "Docker for Mac/Windows/AWS/Azure/GCE", etc. already exist - Moby will likely house all these variations and allow the creation of custom "Docker/Other for X/Y/Z".
asimpletune 9y ago
I don't really understand this, but I think the special feature from Dockercon will help explain.
jbergstroem 9y ago
Thinking marketing split? Docker is the product you pay for and Moby is "may break, use at own risk".
- manbeard 9y ago
  Except for this blurb from Audience section on the Moby Project site: Moby is NOT recommended for: Application developers looking for an easy way to run their applications in containers. We recommend Docker CE instead. Enterprise IT and development teams looking for a ready-to-use, commercially supported container platform. We recommend Docker EE instead. Anyone curious about containers and looking for an easy way to learn. We recommend the docker.com website instead.
djsumdog 9y ago
I too am confuzzled by this. I'm at a Docker shop where we currently run on DC/OS and Marathon. I think the most confusing thing about Docker right now are all the different scheduling and networking frameworks (DC/OS which adds a web ui to mesos and marathon, Kubernetes, Nomad, CoreOS/Fleet, etc). None of these systems scale up from a single 1 node system to a full distributed cluster. Here was my attempt of trying to get DC/OS to run in a minimal cluster on Digital Ocean: http://penguindreams.org/blog/installing-mesosphere-dcos-on-small-digital-ocean-droplets/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/installing-mesosphere-dcos-on-... We use DC/OS at work and the web UI frequently transfers over 1MB of json a second and the failed containers tab can max out CPU at 100% O_o Marathon, Kubernetes, Nomad and Swarm all have their own orchestration json files in totally different formats. It gets more confusing with you take about pluggable network layers (WeaveNet, Flannel). I'd _like_ to think Docker is trying to bring some standardisation to clusters, networking and scheduling ... but I'm not sure if that's the case.
- manojlds 9y ago
  > None of these systems scale up from a single 1 node system to a full distributed cluster What do you mean? This is exactly what they do.
  - tinco 9y ago
    No, most scale up from a 3 or 6 node cluster to an N node cluster.
    - endymi0n 9y ago
      https://kubernetes.io/docs/getting-started-guides/minikube/ https://kubernetes.io/docs/getting-started-guides/minikube/ > Running Kubernetes Locally via Minikube > Minikube is a tool that makes it easy to run Kubernetes locally. Minikube runs a single-node Kubernetes cluster inside a VM on your laptop for users looking to try out Kubernetes or develop with it day-to-day.
      - tinco 9y ago
mdekkers 9y ago
I have a real issue with Docker Marketing Speak bullshit. "Democratizing containers"? When were they not democratic? What were they before? Tyrannical? or - gasp - communist? And now they are going to ADVANCE THE SOFTWARE CONTAINERIZATION MOVEMENT what does that even mean. Hacker News commenters tend to be pretty smart, and at the time I am posting this, most comments are along the lines of "eh? say what now?" When their core consumers don't understand the message, you can bet your hat that they are not the real target of the message. Or the people at Docker are not good at marketing, which I find harder to believe.
- patrickaljord 9y ago
  Democratic in this case means bringing it to a wider audience, making it more accessible to regular devs in this case I guess. See definition #3 here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    I know you're just helping out, but it's kind of ironic that we need a dictionary reference before we can understand Docker marketing lingo.
    - patrickaljord 9y ago
      Hm no, this is a pretty common usage of the word and I didn't have to look up the definition. Democratization of a technology in English always refers to this definition (same in French and Spanish and most Latin languages).
      - franciscop 9y ago
        I am sorry to correct you but in (Spain) Spanish no, in technology it is a fairly recent buzzword that is used mainly in marketing speak. Cannot talk about English, but I feel it's somewhat similar.
kentt 9y ago
Didn't Docker already have a project called Moby? Is this the same thing?
- deizel 9y ago
  It seems so - the `docker/moby` repository[0] now redirects to `linuxkit/linuxkit`, but the `moby` cli from `linuxkit/linuxkit`[1] is being moved to the `moby/moby` repository[2]. [0]: https://github.com/docker/moby https://github.com/docker/moby [1]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit/tree/master/src/cmd/moby https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit/tree/master/src/cmd/mob... [2]: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32693 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32693
- dserodio 9y ago
  Yeah: - Moby VM is (was?) the name of the Linux VM that Docker for Mac (and Windows too, I think) runs as the host for Docker containers. - Moby Dock is the name of the whale in Docker's logo A Google search for "moby docker" restricted to results before April 2017 shows plenty of results Edit: sample search result: http://lucjuggery.com/blog/?p=753 http://lucjuggery.com/blog/?p=753
newsat13 9y ago
I cannot help but think that Docker the company is in deep trouble reading such product announcements. It's incomprehensible. That said, what do I know. The folks at docker are brilliant marketers (with a great product). The marketing is the main reason docker is so wildly popular.
rubiquity 9y ago
If I understand this right it sounds like Moby will be a grab bag of components you can use to create your own container platform. This means the Docker that we know of before today is an implementation of Moby plus some other things (GUIs, SDKs, etc) that they hope to strip out. Like others, I found the press release incomprehensible so the pull request linked to in the docker/docker README is where I'm drawing this understanding from: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 As far as why I think Docker might be doing this: It seems like a continuation of a similar strategy that they did with containers in the first place back when they were known as dotCloud. Rather than continue to compete with Heroku as a PaaS they found it better to open source their container technology and start a container movement (for lack of a better word). Now that the container movement has happened there are a lot of competing tools at the container runtime (Docker, rkt, systemd-nspawn, lxc, etc.) and management (Swarm, Kubernetes, Mesos, Nomad, various ones that delegate to AWS ECS, etc.) levels. Rather than compete with all of those they are pushing themselves up a layer of abstraction to make it easy for companies to create their own container management tools specific to their needs.
shrikrishna 9y ago
A marketing-speak filtered out version of this announcement: You will be able to assemble your own docker engine by stripping out components you don't need (that have until now been shipped in a single docker binary) and keeping the ones you do. This is like assembling PCs, for docker. I think this was mainly intended as an answer to the criticism docker has been receiving (by kubernetes maintainers and others) ever since they decided to ship swarm with docker. I think this move is great as it goes a step further and allows you to swap out build systems, volume mgmnt too. Even though I did not mind docker shipping with swarm, others in the community were, and this shows docker listened, which is great. EDIT: grammar fix
- dkarapetyan 9y ago
  Aren't they doing it kinda backwards? Shouldn't you start with the pieces and then let people assemble them how they want? It's fine to offer off-the-shelf supported configurations but why start with everything and the kitchen sink and then try to backtrack?
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    Because nobody would use docker if installing it required a custom complex build process. This way docker can keep docker CE for its standard use case but also satisfy power users with specific requirements by allowing customization.
    - ReverseCold 9y ago
      I use docker because I can go from "Hey cool project, I want to try it!" To already setup in under a minute depending if I'm at home or not. Also the VMs start really fast, so it's good for getting exotic compiler toolchains on Windows running quickly. Everything has a dockerfile.
shykes 9y ago
This is a transcript of a keynote I just gave at Dockercon. But the keynote had in-depth demos and the blog post doesn't. It will make more sense with the demos. I will try to summarize: when we build Docker for Mac, Docker for Windows, Docker for AWS etc, we assemble a lot of individual components into a complete platform. Then we pack that platform into a bootable artifact for the target environment. That's a lot of work, and it gets harder as the number of targets multiply. We developed a framework to make this more efficient. That framework has become the de-facto upstream of the Docker platform - it sits between the individual upstream projects and the finished product. So we're open-sourcing it as Moby, moving all of our open-source process under it, and inviting the community to come play. Think of it as the "Fedora of Docker". Here's more technical details from the readme: https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/moby/README.md https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/moby/README.md TLDR: - If you're a Docker user, nothing changes: Docker remains the same - If you're a Docker open-source contributor, you're now a Moby contributor. Everything is basically the same, except more modular and more open, and you are less tied to Docker. - If you're building non-Docker container platforms, it's easier to share components and ideas with the Docker community, without being forced into anything you don't like. The Moby tooling itself is pretty neat: you define all the components in your system (including the OS and hypervisor, if required), then pack them into the artifact of your choice. For example you can assemble LinuxKit+ContainerD+Redis into a tiny "RedisOS", and then boot it straight from bare metal; or virtualize it with HyperKit and run it on a Mac; or virtualize it with HyperV and run it on Windows. Moby does all of this for you automatically (this is one of the keynote demos). We also showed a "Kubernetes in a box" assembly, to show that you don't have to stick to Docker-built components.
- tjfontaine 9y ago
  Here's a different reason (jbergstroem also alludes to [1]) why Docker (the company) would rename Docker (the open source project) to a name that cannot be confused with Docker (the product): Trademark (Enforcement). How do you (a for profit company built on open source) enable your community, to build and sell (their own) products, as well as enforce your trademark? If anyone (everyone?) can build and distribute and call their build `docker`, it becomes really hard to protect your investment (as a company and their fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders) from dilution of TheBrand(tm). This is not cynicism and I don't fault Docker (the company) at all, it's just the reality of doing business. It's why Canonical requires a contractual relationship for infrastructure clouds to distribute Ubuntu images, it's why you have things like Firefox and IceWeasel, so on and so forth. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14140543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14140543

209 points by craneca0 9y ago

educar 9y ago

Can someone do a eli5 ? I don't understand what the product is.

4c2383f5c88e911 9y ago
This is github.com/docker/docker with a note added on top of the README. For now you have to watch the DockerCon keynote to understand; it's intended as a "common assembly line for container systems".
- deizel 9y ago
  The new README[0] is in a pull request[1]. [0]: https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/moby/README.md https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/moby/README.md [1]: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691
dullgiulio 9y ago
AFAIK they want to spin out the reusable components off Docker (more than already done in libcontainer), including the code responsible for storage volumes, networking, etc. Basically, make all the building blocks of Docker available as a library, with some framework to use to connect them. Probably the Docker project would become the blessed customer of this new framework. I can't really see rkt, snap, OpenShift adopting this technology, though. Edit: as many of the things they want this framework to do belong to orchestration (if there are several containers involved--they often are), this might also look like a pinch at Kubernetes.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tjfontaine 9y ago

I can't stop reading this as Mooby -- the golden calf. http://kevin-smith.wikia.com/wiki/Mooby_the_Golden_Calf http://kevin-smith.wikia.com/wiki/Mooby_the_Golden_Calf

chatmasta 9y ago

wtf? So the docker project is now "moby"? And I have no idea what the major changes are? How is this going to affect my usage of docker? The readme is incredibly confusing and lists no concrete features, especially none that justify reorganizing the entire docker project so drastically. It took me 5 minutes just to realize that github.com/docker/docker now redirects to github.com/moby/moby. Is this really necessary? Seems like it's just going to create tons of confusion.

dullgiulio 9y ago
It might be temporary as they split the UI (the cli tool docker) and the new moby library. Seems like a move made in a rush. It would have been better to spin out the dependencies of docker into moby instead of moving the project back and forth. Agreed that it is very confusing at this stage.
- kasabali 9y ago
  > Seems like a move made in a rush. You've just summarized everything Docker Inc. does.
mdekkers 9y ago
Seems like it's just going to create tons of confusion. When was the whole Docker circus not confusing?
liveoneggs 9y ago
creating confusion was always the point

pzduniak 9y ago

I was pretty sure something was broken when I was browsing Docker docs and suddenly I ended up in a moby/moby repo.

willejs 9y ago

So, their breaking up the monolith? Hold on to your hat!

deizel 9y ago

As I understand it (though I could be wrong) - this repository (in relation to the old one) is intended to be a parent. Rather than having just the Docker engine, it will coordinate docker, swarmkit, infrakit, linuxkit in a single project. These will be swappable, so for example you could a) swap swarmkit for Kubernetes, b) swap linuxkit for Debian, c) swap infrakit with Terraform. Like "Docker for Mac/Windows/AWS/Azure/GCE", etc. already exist - Moby will likely house all these variations and allow the creation of custom "Docker/Other for X/Y/Z".

asimpletune 9y ago

I don't really understand this, but I think the special feature from Dockercon will help explain.

jbergstroem 9y ago

Thinking marketing split? Docker is the product you pay for and Moby is "may break, use at own risk".

manbeard 9y ago
Except for this blurb from Audience section on the Moby Project site: Moby is NOT recommended for: Application developers looking for an easy way to run their applications in containers. We recommend Docker CE instead. Enterprise IT and development teams looking for a ready-to-use, commercially supported container platform. We recommend Docker EE instead. Anyone curious about containers and looking for an easy way to learn. We recommend the docker.com website instead.

djsumdog 9y ago

I too am confuzzled by this. I'm at a Docker shop where we currently run on DC/OS and Marathon. I think the most confusing thing about Docker right now are all the different scheduling and networking frameworks (DC/OS which adds a web ui to mesos and marathon, Kubernetes, Nomad, CoreOS/Fleet, etc). None of these systems scale up from a single 1 node system to a full distributed cluster. Here was my attempt of trying to get DC/OS to run in a minimal cluster on Digital Ocean: http://penguindreams.org/blog/installing-mesosphere-dcos-on-small-digital-ocean-droplets/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/installing-mesosphere-dcos-on-... We use DC/OS at work and the web UI frequently transfers over 1MB of json a second and the failed containers tab can max out CPU at 100% O_o Marathon, Kubernetes, Nomad and Swarm all have their own orchestration json files in totally different formats. It gets more confusing with you take about pluggable network layers (WeaveNet, Flannel). I'd _like_ to think Docker is trying to bring some standardisation to clusters, networking and scheduling ... but I'm not sure if that's the case.

manojlds 9y ago
> None of these systems scale up from a single 1 node system to a full distributed cluster What do you mean? This is exactly what they do.
- tinco 9y ago
  No, most scale up from a 3 or 6 node cluster to an N node cluster.
  - endymi0n 9y ago
    https://kubernetes.io/docs/getting-started-guides/minikube/ https://kubernetes.io/docs/getting-started-guides/minikube/ > Running Kubernetes Locally via Minikube > Minikube is a tool that makes it easy to run Kubernetes locally. Minikube runs a single-node Kubernetes cluster inside a VM on your laptop for users looking to try out Kubernetes or develop with it day-to-day.
    - tinco 9y ago

mdekkers 9y ago

I have a real issue with Docker Marketing Speak bullshit. "Democratizing containers"? When were they not democratic? What were they before? Tyrannical? or - gasp - communist? And now they are going to ADVANCE THE SOFTWARE CONTAINERIZATION MOVEMENT what does that even mean. Hacker News commenters tend to be pretty smart, and at the time I am posting this, most comments are along the lines of "eh? say what now?" When their core consumers don't understand the message, you can bet your hat that they are not the real target of the message. Or the people at Docker are not good at marketing, which I find harder to believe.

patrickaljord 9y ago
Democratic in this case means bringing it to a wider audience, making it more accessible to regular devs in this case I guess. See definition #3 here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic
- skrebbel 9y ago
  I know you're just helping out, but it's kind of ironic that we need a dictionary reference before we can understand Docker marketing lingo.
  - patrickaljord 9y ago
    Hm no, this is a pretty common usage of the word and I didn't have to look up the definition. Democratization of a technology in English always refers to this definition (same in French and Spanish and most Latin languages).
    - franciscop 9y ago
      I am sorry to correct you but in (Spain) Spanish no, in technology it is a fairly recent buzzword that is used mainly in marketing speak. Cannot talk about English, but I feel it's somewhat similar.

kentt 9y ago

Didn't Docker already have a project called Moby? Is this the same thing?

deizel 9y ago
It seems so - the `docker/moby` repository[0] now redirects to `linuxkit/linuxkit`, but the `moby` cli from `linuxkit/linuxkit`[1] is being moved to the `moby/moby` repository[2]. [0]: https://github.com/docker/moby https://github.com/docker/moby [1]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit/tree/master/src/cmd/moby https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit/tree/master/src/cmd/mob... [2]: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32693 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32693
dserodio 9y ago
Yeah: - Moby VM is (was?) the name of the Linux VM that Docker for Mac (and Windows too, I think) runs as the host for Docker containers. - Moby Dock is the name of the whale in Docker's logo A Google search for "moby docker" restricted to results before April 2017 shows plenty of results Edit: sample search result: http://lucjuggery.com/blog/?p=753 http://lucjuggery.com/blog/?p=753

newsat13 9y ago

I cannot help but think that Docker the company is in deep trouble reading such product announcements. It's incomprehensible. That said, what do I know. The folks at docker are brilliant marketers (with a great product). The marketing is the main reason docker is so wildly popular.

rubiquity 9y ago

If I understand this right it sounds like Moby will be a grab bag of components you can use to create your own container platform. This means the Docker that we know of before today is an implementation of Moby plus some other things (GUIs, SDKs, etc) that they hope to strip out. Like others, I found the press release incomprehensible so the pull request linked to in the docker/docker README is where I'm drawing this understanding from: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 As far as why I think Docker might be doing this: It seems like a continuation of a similar strategy that they did with containers in the first place back when they were known as dotCloud. Rather than continue to compete with Heroku as a PaaS they found it better to open source their container technology and start a container movement (for lack of a better word). Now that the container movement has happened there are a lot of competing tools at the container runtime (Docker, rkt, systemd-nspawn, lxc, etc.) and management (Swarm, Kubernetes, Mesos, Nomad, various ones that delegate to AWS ECS, etc.) levels. Rather than compete with all of those they are pushing themselves up a layer of abstraction to make it easy for companies to create their own container management tools specific to their needs.

shrikrishna 9y ago

A marketing-speak filtered out version of this announcement: You will be able to assemble your own docker engine by stripping out components you don't need (that have until now been shipped in a single docker binary) and keeping the ones you do. This is like assembling PCs, for docker. I think this was mainly intended as an answer to the criticism docker has been receiving (by kubernetes maintainers and others) ever since they decided to ship swarm with docker. I think this move is great as it goes a step further and allows you to swap out build systems, volume mgmnt too. Even though I did not mind docker shipping with swarm, others in the community were, and this shows docker listened, which is great. EDIT: grammar fix

dkarapetyan 9y ago
Aren't they doing it kinda backwards? Shouldn't you start with the pieces and then let people assemble them how they want? It's fine to offer off-the-shelf supported configurations but why start with everything and the kitchen sink and then try to backtrack?
- chatmasta 9y ago
  Because nobody would use docker if installing it required a custom complex build process. This way docker can keep docker CE for its standard use case but also satisfy power users with specific requirements by allowing customization.
  - ReverseCold 9y ago
    I use docker because I can go from "Hey cool project, I want to try it!" To already setup in under a minute depending if I'm at home or not. Also the VMs start really fast, so it's good for getting exotic compiler toolchains on Windows running quickly. Everything has a dockerfile.

shykes 9y ago

This is a transcript of a keynote I just gave at Dockercon. But the keynote had in-depth demos and the blog post doesn't. It will make more sense with the demos. I will try to summarize: when we build Docker for Mac, Docker for Windows, Docker for AWS etc, we assemble a lot of individual components into a complete platform. Then we pack that platform into a bootable artifact for the target environment. That's a lot of work, and it gets harder as the number of targets multiply. We developed a framework to make this more efficient. That framework has become the de-facto upstream of the Docker platform - it sits between the individual upstream projects and the finished product. So we're open-sourcing it as Moby, moving all of our open-source process under it, and inviting the community to come play. Think of it as the "Fedora of Docker". Here's more technical details from the readme: https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/moby/README.md https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/moby/README.md TLDR: - If you're a Docker user, nothing changes: Docker remains the same - If you're a Docker open-source contributor, you're now a Moby contributor. Everything is basically the same, except more modular and more open, and you are less tied to Docker. - If you're building non-Docker container platforms, it's easier to share components and ideas with the Docker community, without being forced into anything you don't like. The Moby tooling itself is pretty neat: you define all the components in your system (including the OS and hypervisor, if required), then pack them into the artifact of your choice. For example you can assemble LinuxKit+ContainerD+Redis into a tiny "RedisOS", and then boot it straight from bare metal; or virtualize it with HyperKit and run it on a Mac; or virtualize it with HyperV and run it on Windows. Moby does all of this for you automatically (this is one of the keynote demos). We also showed a "Kubernetes in a box" assembly, to show that you don't have to stick to Docker-built components.

tjfontaine 9y ago
Here's a different reason (jbergstroem also alludes to [1]) why Docker (the company) would rename Docker (the open source project) to a name that cannot be confused with Docker (the product): Trademark (Enforcement). How do you (a for profit company built on open source) enable your community, to build and sell (their own) products, as well as enforce your trademark? If anyone (everyone?) can build and distribute and call their build `docker`, it becomes really hard to protect your investment (as a company and their fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders) from dilution of TheBrand(tm). This is not cynicism and I don't fault Docker (the company) at all, it's just the reality of doing business. It's why Canonical requires a contractual relationship for infrastructure clouds to distribute Ubuntu images, it's why you have things like Firefox and IceWeasel, so on and so forth. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14140543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14140543