5 ms·

> but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby! I see this kind of cynicism / snark all the

by vosper 10y ago

> but the CTO wants to be seen as being innovative for adopting this new technology and ita called docker not moby! I see this kind of cynicism / snark all the time on HN (especially when it comes to Docker) but is it really warranted? Surely it's the rare exception? I've never met senior people who couldn't understand the naming difference between the open source version of a thing and the enterprise-branded version. Or a CEO or President. They're not morons. This seems like cheap shots for upvotes. Or am I wrong?

jetsnoc 10y ago
I don't think your wrong. Someone being that entitled and ignorant must be the rare exception in 2017. Maybe I'm in a bubble too. The conversation usually goes like this with my folk: I get it, Moby is the OSS version and can be easily stood up and you don't see the need for extra cost. I'm glad you're trying to reduce expenses, but I don't mind paying for 24x7 Enterprise Support and it gives me piece of mind and priority escalation support. Basically, I don't mind paying extra for a get out of jail free card if a whole swarm is offline.... I can tell the CEO we have the vendor partner engaged with a critical ticket and she can have piece of mind too. So, let's quote out the Enterprise version of Docker and evaluate the TCO of both solutions.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  It's also vital in non tech Fortune-size orgs to be able to lean on the vendor. Not having support is a deal breaker.
- atgreen 10y ago
  By calling Moby the "OSS version" you are implying that Docker EE isn't open source. Honest question... is it true that Docker EE contains proprietary code, or did you mean to say "community version"?
  - jetsnoc 10y ago
    I probably should have written that as Community Version. I'm very uninformed when it comes to all of this and the Docker, Inc. ecosystem. Sorry about that :)
tyingq 10y ago
I've certainly seen CIOs in non tech companies, who know what RedHat is, but don't know what Fedora is. It's not all of them, but it does exist.
diminoten 10y ago
This idea isn't cynical, it's branding. The whole point of creating a brand like Moby is to trigger conversations about what level of service you're getting when you say you're using "Moby" vs. "Docker". The CTO hears they're using "Moby", which for the first time may make the CTO realize that some of the infrastructure for his business is relying on unsupported technology (or maybe he intuitively realized it but now it's obvious). It's not a "cheap shot", and it's not for "upvotes", it's just an observation about the nature of this change being non-technical, related to messaging.
- dstroot 10y ago
  Why do we keep equating OSS to "unsupported"? Some of the OSS I use is far better supported than licensed software. Drop an issue on GitHub and it gets fixed in a few weeks. - a CIO
  - venture_lol 10y ago
    Support means you can get someone (or a minor army if necessary) on the phone or on the premise immediately Platinum support means you can get C-level executives on the line. Reputation and counter party risk all factor into evaluation and cost of support as well
    - defined 10y ago
      > you can get someone (or a minor army if necessary) on the phone or on the premise immediately That's "on the _premises_".
  - atgreen 10y ago
    And there are a number of OSS support vendors; notably Red Hat.
  - parasubvert 10y ago
    Because without a legal contract to cover support, you don't have someone that contractually has to answer your call. You might not care about this, and many don't. You're running the risk that the maintainers won't pack up shop and stop maintaining the project, and that you & your team will need to inherit the project. Other way of looking at it, is that if you're a business, you always should pay for your software, even if it's open source. Because you will one way or another: through your team, or through the risk that free riding brings.
zobzu 10y ago
Ive seen a lot of C-level people like that. Not all. But lots. How many, idk. Sometimes it feels like 50% of the C-level, sometimes it feels like 10%. Basically I wouldn't ignore it.
cs02rm0 10y ago
I've known a CEO of a company not know what the difference between Centos and Redhat is. All his company's servers ran Centos.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Not knowing the difference isn't the same as preferring one because it's a buzzword.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
It probably depends on each of our anecdotal experiences. I've worked with and met some higher ups in companies and government organizations that would actually react like this and I met some that were very well educated. Unfortunately I've worked with far more of the former than the latter. So to me it seems fair but depending on your experience I could see it as a cheap shot for upvotes as well.
mdekkers 10y ago
I've never met senior people who couldn't understand the naming difference between the open source version of a thing and the enterprise-branded version. Here is an old saying: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" - neatly illustrating the issue. I have met _many_ senior people that don't understand these naming differences. They tend to be the bosses of the CEO and CTO's

by vosper 10y ago

jetsnoc 10y ago

I don't think your wrong. Someone being that entitled and ignorant must be the rare exception in 2017. Maybe I'm in a bubble too. The conversation usually goes like this with my folk: I get it, Moby is the OSS version and can be easily stood up and you don't see the need for extra cost. I'm glad you're trying to reduce expenses, but I don't mind paying for 24x7 Enterprise Support and it gives me piece of mind and priority escalation support. Basically, I don't mind paying extra for a get out of jail free card if a whole swarm is offline.... I can tell the CEO we have the vendor partner engaged with a critical ticket and she can have piece of mind too. So, let's quote out the Enterprise version of Docker and evaluate the TCO of both solutions.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
It's also vital in non tech Fortune-size orgs to be able to lean on the vendor. Not having support is a deal breaker.
atgreen 10y ago
By calling Moby the "OSS version" you are implying that Docker EE isn't open source. Honest question... is it true that Docker EE contains proprietary code, or did you mean to say "community version"?
- jetsnoc 10y ago
  I probably should have written that as Community Version. I'm very uninformed when it comes to all of this and the Docker, Inc. ecosystem. Sorry about that :)

tyingq 10y ago

I've certainly seen CIOs in non tech companies, who know what RedHat is, but don't know what Fedora is. It's not all of them, but it does exist.

diminoten 10y ago

This idea isn't cynical, it's branding. The whole point of creating a brand like Moby is to trigger conversations about what level of service you're getting when you say you're using "Moby" vs. "Docker". The CTO hears they're using "Moby", which for the first time may make the CTO realize that some of the infrastructure for his business is relying on unsupported technology (or maybe he intuitively realized it but now it's obvious). It's not a "cheap shot", and it's not for "upvotes", it's just an observation about the nature of this change being non-technical, related to messaging.

dstroot 10y ago
Why do we keep equating OSS to "unsupported"? Some of the OSS I use is far better supported than licensed software. Drop an issue on GitHub and it gets fixed in a few weeks. - a CIO
- venture_lol 10y ago
  Support means you can get someone (or a minor army if necessary) on the phone or on the premise immediately Platinum support means you can get C-level executives on the line. Reputation and counter party risk all factor into evaluation and cost of support as well
  - defined 10y ago
    > you can get someone (or a minor army if necessary) on the phone or on the premise immediately That's "on the _premises_".
- atgreen 10y ago
  And there are a number of OSS support vendors; notably Red Hat.
- parasubvert 10y ago
  Because without a legal contract to cover support, you don't have someone that contractually has to answer your call. You might not care about this, and many don't. You're running the risk that the maintainers won't pack up shop and stop maintaining the project, and that you & your team will need to inherit the project. Other way of looking at it, is that if you're a business, you always should pay for your software, even if it's open source. Because you will one way or another: through your team, or through the risk that free riding brings.

zobzu 10y ago

Ive seen a lot of C-level people like that. Not all. But lots. How many, idk. Sometimes it feels like 50% of the C-level, sometimes it feels like 10%. Basically I wouldn't ignore it.

cs02rm0 10y ago

I've known a CEO of a company not know what the difference between Centos and Redhat is. All his company's servers ran Centos.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
Not knowing the difference isn't the same as preferring one because it's a buzzword.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

It probably depends on each of our anecdotal experiences. I've worked with and met some higher ups in companies and government organizations that would actually react like this and I met some that were very well educated. Unfortunately I've worked with far more of the former than the latter. So to me it seems fair but depending on your experience I could see it as a cheap shot for upvotes as well.

mdekkers 10y ago

I've never met senior people who couldn't understand the naming difference between the open source version of a thing and the enterprise-branded version. Here is an old saying: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" - neatly illustrating the issue. I have met _many_ senior people that don't understand these naming differences. They tend to be the bosses of the CEO and CTO's