8 ms·

It's not a good move, but I don't understand the vitriol expressed on Github, calling the developers jerks etc. Our company has never paid Docker for anything,

It's not a good move, but I don't understand the vitriol expressed on Github, calling the developers jerks etc. Our company has never paid Docker for anything, but we've benefited greatly from having Docker images be the output of our backend build jobs. I never have to dig into classpath errors from conflicting JARs any more, or deal with out of date JDKs living on QA and production machines. I can deploy a dependent service that I know nothing about without digging through code and documentation. Yes it has its issues but the positives far outweigh the negatives. I understand that it's a frustrating move and the wrong path to go to for monetization, but can we also recognize that it's a company has done a lot for the community and is struggling to secure its future, instead of calling them names?

michaelt 8y ago
I don't understand the vitriol expressed on Github Some people see a change making the UX worse promoted as a change that improves the UX, and feel it's an honest mistake that will be corrected by straightforward, constructive feedback. Other people see the same thing and think the dishonesty is intentional. Docker would hardly be the first company to do this [1] - but some people may have seen Docker as 'not like those other companies' and be disappointed to discover they are. [1] http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-08-09 http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-08-09
- troydavis 8y ago
  Your summary doesn’t line up with the linked-to GitHub issue. “Straightforward, constructive” feedback was provided by the issue creator and was seemingly ignored.
dsign 8y ago
Cheers to that. We recently had to support a customer stuck in a Linux distro from a few years ago... this was an older guy that like how things were made back in the day and who hasn't upgraded his system because nobody uses good'ol init scripts anymore in Linux... We had to spend the best part of a week creating by hand a binary of our product that could run in his distro, including versions of system libraries with critical security patches. Docker the company and docker the tooling may have issues, but those Docker images are a life-saver at times.

michaelt 8y ago

I don't understand the vitriol expressed on Github Some people see a change making the UX worse promoted as a change that improves the UX, and feel it's an honest mistake that will be corrected by straightforward, constructive feedback. Other people see the same thing and think the dishonesty is intentional. Docker would hardly be the first company to do this [1] - but some people may have seen Docker as 'not like those other companies' and be disappointed to discover they are. [1] http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-08-09 http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-08-09

troydavis 8y ago
Your summary doesn’t line up with the linked-to GitHub issue. “Straightforward, constructive” feedback was provided by the issue creator and was seemingly ignored.

dsign 8y ago

Cheers to that. We recently had to support a customer stuck in a Linux distro from a few years ago... this was an older guy that like how things were made back in the day and who hasn't upgraded his system because nobody uses good'ol init scripts anymore in Linux... We had to spend the best part of a week creating by hand a binary of our product that could run in his distro, including versions of system libraries with critical security patches. Docker the company and docker the tooling may have issues, but those Docker images are a life-saver at times.