4 ms·

Docker was probably a victim of its own success, with so many containers & orchestration systems popping up (CoreOS, Kubernetes, etc.), it became harder for the

Docker was probably a victim of its own success, with so many containers & orchestration systems popping up (CoreOS, Kubernetes, etc.), it became harder for them to capture enterprise market that they had taken for granted. Worse the impression that I got was somehow Docker with its great usability was for amateurs and not for enterprise users (where most of the revenue is expected to come from). Anyway I think Docker is a great revolutionary product living up to the vision that was initially presented. However it badly needs enterprise adoption to remain viable, all other container systems suck in usability aspects. Hopefully this drives more revenue while keeping the core product still easy to use.

monkey2005 9y ago
Docker just needed to license and support the engine rather than trying to build a crappy enterprise platform a'la Cloud Foundry. The Docker engine is the one thing which nobody else can easily replicate. They would have smashed it in the mass market at something like $100/yr/node.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 9y ago
  The Docker engine is the one thing which nobody else can easily replicate. They can, and have: https://coreos.com/rkt https://coreos.com/rkt That's why Docker had to keep expanding.
  - holydude 9y ago
    + the docker engine is just a polished version of what we had for ages
    - user5994461 9y ago
      Not totally accurate. BSD and solaris have had good containerisation engines for a while. Linux, not so much.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        Ehh... the actual "make a container out of this chunk of the filesystem" bit can be done in a couple hundred lines of Ruby/Python/Perl - Docker is, of course, just telling the kernel to create new uid/filesystem/network/etc namespaces and what to put in them. Most of Docker is the image management system and build tool.
        icebraining 9y ago
        I think the point is that those namespaces are rather recent themselves, whereas e.g. FreeBSD has had jails since 2000.

monkey2005 9y ago

Docker just needed to license and support the engine rather than trying to build a crappy enterprise platform a'la Cloud Foundry. The Docker engine is the one thing which nobody else can easily replicate. They would have smashed it in the mass market at something like $100/yr/node.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 9y ago
The Docker engine is the one thing which nobody else can easily replicate. They can, and have: https://coreos.com/rkt https://coreos.com/rkt That's why Docker had to keep expanding.
- holydude 9y ago
  + the docker engine is just a polished version of what we had for ages
  - user5994461 9y ago
    Not totally accurate. BSD and solaris have had good containerisation engines for a while. Linux, not so much.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      Ehh... the actual "make a container out of this chunk of the filesystem" bit can be done in a couple hundred lines of Ruby/Python/Perl - Docker is, of course, just telling the kernel to create new uid/filesystem/network/etc namespaces and what to put in them. Most of Docker is the image management system and build tool.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        I think the point is that those namespaces are rather recent themselves, whereas e.g. FreeBSD has had jails since 2000.