3 ms·
Seriously. At the least, re-title to "Docker, Inc." because the technology is FAR from dead.
by tjbiddle 9y ago
Seriously. At the least, re-title to "Docker, Inc." because the technology is FAR from dead.
- cmurf 9y agoThe argument is Docker is the company, and that company is in the best case going to be acquired (go away gracefully) or melt away. The technology is immortalized in Moby. The article doesn't make a concluding prognostication about Moby vis-à-vis Kubernetes but very clearly thinks the momentum is behind Kubernetes because of the incoherent strategy behind Moby (other than as a means to throw the technology a life line beyond the fate of Docker).
- y4mi 9y agoThe technology is not "docker" but containerisation.
- LaGrange 9y agoNo, technology is "docker." Containerisation is a family of technologies, but things like runc or - especially - LXC are quite different.
- dvanduzer 9y agoThank you, I didn't realize LXC wasn't the only interface to cgroups used by Docker. TIL.
- y4mi 9y agoAnd projects like rkt don't exist in your world? while it's been a while since my last brush with kubernetes, didn't they use kubectl? So yeah... it's containerisation, not docker.
- LaGrange 9y agoRkt is functionally different enough from Docker to be called a different tech, and Kubernetes is, like, a totally different category. Are you also calling bicycles, cars and motorbikes the same technology, because they all use the technology called "wheel" somewhere?
- notatoad 9y agoisn't that the point? Docker is just the company now, because docker spun out their technology into moby. there's still a binary on my computer called docker, but it seems that docker, inc wishes that weren't so.