5 ms·

More information can be found there: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 > Docker is transitioning all of its open

by bru 9y ago

More information can be found there: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 > Docker is transitioning all of its open source collaborations to the Moby project going forward. Should I understand that the core team wants to keep the brand "Docker" but use it in a commercial way, while Moby will be the underlying open source code? Is it Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora ? or Docker/Moby = Mongodb.com/Mongodb.org?

octo_t 9y ago
from https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 as well: > defining an open, community-centric governance inspired by the Fedora project
- tcrews 9y ago
  That's a great idea. I really trust Red Hat and they have consistently delivered. I don't think the same applies to Docker Inc. so my initial reaction is step on the brakes here.
Jabbermonkey 9y ago
Also from that thread: Moby = open source development Docker CE = free product release based on Moby Docker EE = commercial product release based on Docker CE. Nothing is dead; and everything that was open-source remains open-source. In fact we are open-sourcing new things.
- zamalek 9y ago
  So essentially the difference between Chromium and Chrome?
  - unixhero 9y ago
    No, that would not be accurate. The difference between them is like Redhat Enterprise Linux (Costs Money, Enterprise Supported) vs CentOS (Community managed, community supported, Libre Free)
    - bonzini 9y ago
      CentOS comes from RHEL, while Docker comes from Moby. So the correct parallel is Fedora-RHEL or Wildfly-JBoss.
  - JdeBP 9y ago
    You are better off looking at Oracle, the difference between (say) MySQL Community Edition and MySQL Enterprise Edition, and the relationships between MySQL and MariaDB and Percona.
nailer 9y ago
Summoning dang to update link.
tcrews 9y ago
Here is the initial Fedora/RH announcement, for reference: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/msg00064.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/m...
shykes 9y ago
Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Except that you claim Docker will continue to have Docker CE (Fedora equivalent) and Docker EE (RHEL equivalent). These products will continue to be issued by Docker Inc., will they not? Will "Docker CE" be released as "Moby" in the future? If so, how will it be distinguished from the "Moby Project", which is just a bunch of "building blocks"? If Moby is the name of a collection of subsystems that are drawn upon to build user-ready container platforms like Docker, isn't GNU userland/Linux kernel->(Fedora/Red Hat)->Red Hat Inc. as Moby->(Docker CE/EE)->Docker Inc.? Perhaps a better way to explain it is that Moby is a "containerization kernel/core" a la Linux or an "open containerland" a la GNU. The term "framework" may be a little more accessible at the cost of diminishing street cred by appealing more to web devs than old-school system devs. These fancy words probably shouldn't be a problem since it seems only developers would be interested in Moby anyway (instead of end users who would want to use a Moby distribution). With a little bit of finesse, this could've probably been construed as the boon for the open-source community that it seems you originally intended. "Docker Inc. donates its core technology to the open-source community and invites competitors to use it as the base of their own products." Too late to right the ship?
  - shykes 9y ago
    > Will "Docker CE" be released as "Moby" in the future? If so, how will it be distinguished from the "Moby Project", which is just a bunch of "building blocks"? Docker CE will remain Docker CE. In the Fedora/RHEL analogy, think of Docker CE as the recently introduced "RHEL free developer edition". It's still a commercial product - it's just free and open-source. > With a little bit of finesse, this could've probably been construed as the boon for the open-source community that it seems you originally intended. "Docker Inc. donates its core technology to the open-source community and invites competitors to use it as the base of their own products." Too late to right the ship? You mean like this? :) https://blog.docker.com/2017/04/introducing-the-moby-project/ https://blog.docker.com/2017/04/introducing-the-moby-project... http://www.cio.com/article/3191344/linux/why-docker-created-the-moby-project.html http://www.cio.com/article/3191344/linux/why-docker-created-... http://windowsitpro.com/cloud/docker-brings-open-collaboration-moby-project http://windowsitpro.com/cloud/docker-brings-open-collaborati... https://jaxenter.com/docker-containers-moby-project-133404.html https://jaxenter.com/docker-containers-moby-project-133404.h... Outside of the Hacker News bubble, this is a non-issue. 500 people read the title of a pull request, didn't even read the contents of the change, and clicked on the "thumbs down" emoji. Meanwhile the vast majority of Docker users don't scan the repository for pull requests. And the majority of those who do actually take the time to read the code, and usually have enough context to understand why we are doing this: modularization, openness etc. In between these two groups, you have Hacker News basically. That pull request was confusing, yes. And we clarified it. But it's an implementation detail and definitely not representative of how the Moby launch was understood by the community.
developer2 9y ago
Terrible timing for Docker to do this. It may not be much of an underlying change, but the simple fact that https://github.com/docker/docker https://github.com/docker/docker redirects to https://github.com/moby/moby https://github.com/moby/moby is a product-destroying move, as Docker is now just managing to spread to a wider audience. This move is going to confuse many users, and could entirely derail their growth. What the hell were they thinking, to execute this decision at such a critical point in time? Docker was already confusing enough to get started with, and now there's an additional barrier to entry just to understand what it all means? People right now at least understand what "Docker" is; now people are going to be redirected to something called "Moby", and many will give up out of confusion. Really bad timing for such a move. tldr; Am I even supposed to call it "Docker" now? Years of growing recognition of that name, thrown out the window.
- lcalcote 9y ago
  Users shouldn't be confused as they are able to continue using docker as they have in the past. The Moby project doesn't affect their consumption and use of docker.

by bru 9y ago

octo_t 9y ago

from https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 as well: > defining an open, community-centric governance inspired by the Fedora project

tcrews 9y ago
That's a great idea. I really trust Red Hat and they have consistently delivered. I don't think the same applies to Docker Inc. so my initial reaction is step on the brakes here.

Jabbermonkey 9y ago

Also from that thread: Moby = open source development Docker CE = free product release based on Moby Docker EE = commercial product release based on Docker CE. Nothing is dead; and everything that was open-source remains open-source. In fact we are open-sourcing new things.

zamalek 9y ago
So essentially the difference between Chromium and Chrome?
- unixhero 9y ago
  No, that would not be accurate. The difference between them is like Redhat Enterprise Linux (Costs Money, Enterprise Supported) vs CentOS (Community managed, community supported, Libre Free)
  - bonzini 9y ago
    CentOS comes from RHEL, while Docker comes from Moby. So the correct parallel is Fedora-RHEL or Wildfly-JBoss.
- JdeBP 9y ago
  You are better off looking at Oracle, the difference between (say) MySQL Community Edition and MySQL Enterprise Edition, and the relationships between MySQL and MariaDB and Percona.

nailer 9y ago

Summoning dang to update link.

tcrews 9y ago

Here is the initial Fedora/RH announcement, for reference: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/msg00064.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/m...

shykes 9y ago

Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora

cookiecaper 9y ago
Except that you claim Docker will continue to have Docker CE (Fedora equivalent) and Docker EE (RHEL equivalent). These products will continue to be issued by Docker Inc., will they not? Will "Docker CE" be released as "Moby" in the future? If so, how will it be distinguished from the "Moby Project", which is just a bunch of "building blocks"? If Moby is the name of a collection of subsystems that are drawn upon to build user-ready container platforms like Docker, isn't GNU userland/Linux kernel->(Fedora/Red Hat)->Red Hat Inc. as Moby->(Docker CE/EE)->Docker Inc.? Perhaps a better way to explain it is that Moby is a "containerization kernel/core" a la Linux or an "open containerland" a la GNU. The term "framework" may be a little more accessible at the cost of diminishing street cred by appealing more to web devs than old-school system devs. These fancy words probably shouldn't be a problem since it seems only developers would be interested in Moby anyway (instead of end users who would want to use a Moby distribution). With a little bit of finesse, this could've probably been construed as the boon for the open-source community that it seems you originally intended. "Docker Inc. donates its core technology to the open-source community and invites competitors to use it as the base of their own products." Too late to right the ship?
- shykes 9y ago
  > Will "Docker CE" be released as "Moby" in the future? If so, how will it be distinguished from the "Moby Project", which is just a bunch of "building blocks"? Docker CE will remain Docker CE. In the Fedora/RHEL analogy, think of Docker CE as the recently introduced "RHEL free developer edition". It's still a commercial product - it's just free and open-source. > With a little bit of finesse, this could've probably been construed as the boon for the open-source community that it seems you originally intended. "Docker Inc. donates its core technology to the open-source community and invites competitors to use it as the base of their own products." Too late to right the ship? You mean like this? :) https://blog.docker.com/2017/04/introducing-the-moby-project/ https://blog.docker.com/2017/04/introducing-the-moby-project... http://www.cio.com/article/3191344/linux/why-docker-created-the-moby-project.html http://www.cio.com/article/3191344/linux/why-docker-created-... http://windowsitpro.com/cloud/docker-brings-open-collaboration-moby-project http://windowsitpro.com/cloud/docker-brings-open-collaborati... https://jaxenter.com/docker-containers-moby-project-133404.html https://jaxenter.com/docker-containers-moby-project-133404.h... Outside of the Hacker News bubble, this is a non-issue. 500 people read the title of a pull request, didn't even read the contents of the change, and clicked on the "thumbs down" emoji. Meanwhile the vast majority of Docker users don't scan the repository for pull requests. And the majority of those who do actually take the time to read the code, and usually have enough context to understand why we are doing this: modularization, openness etc. In between these two groups, you have Hacker News basically. That pull request was confusing, yes. And we clarified it. But it's an implementation detail and definitely not representative of how the Moby launch was understood by the community.

developer2 9y ago

Terrible timing for Docker to do this. It may not be much of an underlying change, but the simple fact that https://github.com/docker/docker https://github.com/docker/docker redirects to https://github.com/moby/moby https://github.com/moby/moby is a product-destroying move, as Docker is now just managing to spread to a wider audience. This move is going to confuse many users, and could entirely derail their growth. What the hell were they thinking, to execute this decision at such a critical point in time? Docker was already confusing enough to get started with, and now there's an additional barrier to entry just to understand what it all means? People right now at least understand what "Docker" is; now people are going to be redirected to something called "Moby", and many will give up out of confusion. Really bad timing for such a move. tldr; Am I even supposed to call it "Docker" now? Years of growing recognition of that name, thrown out the window.

lcalcote 9y ago
Users shouldn't be confused as they are able to continue using docker as they have in the past. The Moby project doesn't affect their consumption and use of docker.