5 ms·

This is the one of the worst kind of business decision one can make. But I am not theirCTO and CEO. While not the same as Vagrant being replaced (and then reviv

by yeukhon 10y ago

This is the one of the worst kind of business decision one can make. But I am not theirCTO and CEO. While not the same as Vagrant being replaced (and then revived because the alternate project was a burden), feels the same shitty decision IMO. Plently of people run successful OSS under the same name. Disappointing.

bonesss 10y ago
I believe you might be reading the situation backwards... Dockers underlying components are quite usable for many solutions in other projects and platforms. Now, instead of having "Docker TM" components in their stack, OSS projects can connect the tools without seeming to support a specific commercial provider. Presently there is a lot of confusion and OSS projects are hesitant to use Docker components because of the perception of a closed eco-system. Now the project has clearer commercial branding and a more appealing package set for OSS consumers. Remember: many of the most important actors we need to collaborate in this space are direct commercial competitors to Docker Inc.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jacquesm 10y ago
It's quite clever actually. First you get half the world behind your open source project and then with a little sleight of hand that suddenly becomes a valuable commercial brand. Not the first time this is done either.
- user5994461 10y ago
  How is that clever? You just renamed your brand away and lost all the credit from it.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Because the commercial entity will keep the name so all the docker mindshare suddenly 'points' to a thing that people would have to pay for. If they had renamed the commercial stuff to Moby they'd have to start from scratch, now there are thousands of articles and links that say 'go get docker' intending to point you to the open source stuff, instead directing you to the commercial stuff. A very effective bait-and-switch.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      What, exactly, is the bait in this case? The name? Because it sure seems as if I could still get everything as I could before. Do you really think there are people who reads a tutorial and ends up buying Docker Enterprise Edition for 9,950$ because they failed to see the "Docker Community Edition" link, which by the way, will still be available?
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > "Docker Community Edition" That's not Docker. That's Moby.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        user5994461 10y ago
        It's gonna take more than a github announcement to refresh the memory of 1 million developers ;)
        registrator 10y ago
        Pretty sure that's exactly what Docker is counting on. Otherwise what used to be called Docker would continue to be called Docker.
        shykes 10y ago
        What used to be called Docker does, in fact, continue to be called Docker.
exelius 10y ago
> Plently of people run successful OSS under the same name. Disappointing. But those projects aren't true OSS in the way that something like Docker / Moby needs to be. Your Vagrant example is one of them; Vagrant is a useful tool but ultimately too narrowly-focused. Docker's biggest coup was seamlessly integrating orchestration tools with deployment tools -- and now they're separating the two (which is completely fine, because they need to be separate tools anyway to support complex use cases). Docker has built a lot of valuable IP that they want to protect (branding, UI, API, etc.) That makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense that they want to open source a big chunk of the "glue" between everything because 1) it's generally useful to lots of people / projects and 2) it gets other companies to kick in dollars for maintenance. You're not going to get non-customers to fund the maintenance of an open source project that is wholly run and owned by Docker. They know that, and hence they're creating a governance board. But once you do that, you lose full control of your brand (which is attached to the project), and thus you have to divorce the two. Docker is still going to drive the development of Moby. But over time, other companies will enter the fold to build other complex system orchestration projects on top of Moby.
solatic 10y ago
On the contrary. If you understand enterprise FOSS, then you understand that one of the primary benefits of FOSS for the enterprise contributing customer is the ability to to make the software more relevant for the enterprise through the enterprise's contributions to the FOSS project, at a rate which is typically unfeasible, if even possible, for closed commercial products. By splitting up the open-source Docker CE codebase into smaller projects, each smaller project is more approachable to outside potential contributors. If Docker can succeed in increasing the number of contributors to the Moby projects, compared to the Docker CE project, then they'll have succeeded in increasing the relevance of their product in their target market, which translates to more customers, sales, and profits in the long-term. Of course they run the business risk of a fork taking off, but in the real world, forks are arms races. They're easily won against dead or severely mismanaged projects, but against a project with a well-funded corporate sponsor? Few, if any, will have the resources to put into making a better fork than the original. And like they said, for the vast majority of their customers, nothing is changing. Their customers bought a Docker product yesterday, and they're buying a Docker product tomorrow. That branding isn't changing.
FooBarWidget 10y ago
People were disappointed in Fedora too when it was first introduced. People even mocked the name. It worked out just fine for Red Hat.

by yeukhon 10y ago

bonesss 10y ago

I believe you might be reading the situation backwards... Dockers underlying components are quite usable for many solutions in other projects and platforms. Now, instead of having "Docker TM" components in their stack, OSS projects can connect the tools without seeming to support a specific commercial provider. Presently there is a lot of confusion and OSS projects are hesitant to use Docker components because of the perception of a closed eco-system. Now the project has clearer commercial branding and a more appealing package set for OSS consumers. Remember: many of the most important actors we need to collaborate in this space are direct commercial competitors to Docker Inc.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 10y ago

It's quite clever actually. First you get half the world behind your open source project and then with a little sleight of hand that suddenly becomes a valuable commercial brand. Not the first time this is done either.

user5994461 10y ago
How is that clever? You just renamed your brand away and lost all the credit from it.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Because the commercial entity will keep the name so all the docker mindshare suddenly 'points' to a thing that people would have to pay for. If they had renamed the commercial stuff to Moby they'd have to start from scratch, now there are thousands of articles and links that say 'go get docker' intending to point you to the open source stuff, instead directing you to the commercial stuff. A very effective bait-and-switch.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    What, exactly, is the bait in this case? The name? Because it sure seems as if I could still get everything as I could before. Do you really think there are people who reads a tutorial and ends up buying Docker Enterprise Edition for 9,950$ because they failed to see the "Docker Community Edition" link, which by the way, will still be available?
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > "Docker Community Edition" That's not Docker. That's Moby.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - user5994461 10y ago
        It's gonna take more than a github announcement to refresh the memory of 1 million developers ;)
        registrator 10y ago
        Pretty sure that's exactly what Docker is counting on. Otherwise what used to be called Docker would continue to be called Docker.
        shykes 10y ago
        What used to be called Docker does, in fact, continue to be called Docker.

exelius 10y ago

> Plently of people run successful OSS under the same name. Disappointing. But those projects aren't true OSS in the way that something like Docker / Moby needs to be. Your Vagrant example is one of them; Vagrant is a useful tool but ultimately too narrowly-focused. Docker's biggest coup was seamlessly integrating orchestration tools with deployment tools -- and now they're separating the two (which is completely fine, because they need to be separate tools anyway to support complex use cases). Docker has built a lot of valuable IP that they want to protect (branding, UI, API, etc.) That makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense that they want to open source a big chunk of the "glue" between everything because 1) it's generally useful to lots of people / projects and 2) it gets other companies to kick in dollars for maintenance. You're not going to get non-customers to fund the maintenance of an open source project that is wholly run and owned by Docker. They know that, and hence they're creating a governance board. But once you do that, you lose full control of your brand (which is attached to the project), and thus you have to divorce the two. Docker is still going to drive the development of Moby. But over time, other companies will enter the fold to build other complex system orchestration projects on top of Moby.

solatic 10y ago

On the contrary. If you understand enterprise FOSS, then you understand that one of the primary benefits of FOSS for the enterprise contributing customer is the ability to to make the software more relevant for the enterprise through the enterprise's contributions to the FOSS project, at a rate which is typically unfeasible, if even possible, for closed commercial products. By splitting up the open-source Docker CE codebase into smaller projects, each smaller project is more approachable to outside potential contributors. If Docker can succeed in increasing the number of contributors to the Moby projects, compared to the Docker CE project, then they'll have succeeded in increasing the relevance of their product in their target market, which translates to more customers, sales, and profits in the long-term. Of course they run the business risk of a fork taking off, but in the real world, forks are arms races. They're easily won against dead or severely mismanaged projects, but against a project with a well-funded corporate sponsor? Few, if any, will have the resources to put into making a better fork than the original. And like they said, for the vast majority of their customers, nothing is changing. Their customers bought a Docker product yesterday, and they're buying a Docker product tomorrow. That branding isn't changing.

FooBarWidget 10y ago

People were disappointed in Fedora too when it was first introduced. People even mocked the name. It worked out just fine for Red Hat.