31 ms·
>"enterprisify" docker into something very different. That's probably not fair though. But that's actually the industry containers are good for. Enterprise. Pr
by ralfn 9y ago
>"enterprisify" docker into something very different. That's probably not fair though.
But that's actually the industry containers are good for. Enterprise. Predictability trumps costs. The flaws of docker may over time get fixed. It's the small companies and startups that are making a fool of themselves by pretending they extract any kind of value out of docker.
Imagine a large 100+ man software project that spans two years and involves four different organisations collaborating. There are at least 100+ non-technical 'knowledge workers' interacting with this process. The people have the intent of 'not being responsible for anything', but establishing their position/role so their cost/budget is validated. You know, the typical large-scale Oracle/Cap-Gemini/IBM clusterfuck of incompetence.
But that's the secret! They aren't incompetent at all (as organisations). They sell something no-one else sells. They sell predictability.
Because for all what it's worth: they don't make huge architectural fuck ups. They make their deadline. And they are able to deliver something, even with this many stakeholders pissing all over the project from any direction.
For them, docker is brilliant. It standardizes something. It doesn't do it very well, but that doesn't matter. They aren't in a low-margin world. "Docker isn't really secure, you really should run every docker image in a separate VM". Sure. These sort of people are paying 500-1000 per instance anyway. No one cares. Coordinating devops with this many stakeholders, now _thats_ expensive.
The quality of the actual technology (much like on the web itself) is initially irrelevant. The value is in the fact there's a contract. A standard. Docker is a bad implementation of reasonable idea. The question isn't if it's a good technical choice. No, it's not. But it's organisational and economically more compatible with the rest of world.
And you know what? At least those enterprise idiots will run JVM instances on their docker images, so if they need more than three servers it's not because they are incompetent (like every startup wasting their time on cloud orchestration stuff). At least when they pay the price in complexity for building something scalable it's because they actually need something scalable.
- tyingq 9y agoI meant something different by "enterprisify". Ever dealt with SAP?
- api 9y agoThis is by far the best post about Docker I've ever seen. We're a small company and so far we've never found a role for Docker. We just deploy stuff to VMs and bare metal servers with Chef. Docker is occasionally useful for testing and builds but that's about it. But... the thought of coordinating the way we do things with 100+ developers working under layers of middle management is terrifying. Stuff would be breaking left and right. It would be a disaster. For that we'd want a true zero-interdependency micro service type way of doing things where everyone's part is a different product and is deployed as a completely separate monolith. For that Docker with all its warts and inefficiencies is an acceptable, standard solution. As you say it's not ideal or elegant but it works and people know it.