2 ms·
Exactly. I see Docker as a framework. It's the "get me from nothing" to a fully featured solution for building, running and distributing containerized applicat
by nickjj 8y ago
Exactly.
I see Docker as a framework. It's the "get me from nothing" to a fully featured solution for building, running and distributing containerized applications. And it happens to do it for anyone running Windows, MacOS or Linux.
It's the same reason why I would want to use a web framework. I don't necessarily want to write and string together a bunch of super low level things. I want to start at a higher level of abstraction so I can focus on writing the applications I care about.
As an end user, I don't necessarily care too much about OCI or the runtime spec. I care about running docker-compose up and having everything work.
- detaro 8y agoThe article is about the company, not the product. Which bits of what Docker provides would you pay for, given free alternatives exist now for basically all of it?
- raesene9 8y agoTo be fair, the article is about both. To quote "in my humble opinion the days for Docker as a company are numbered and maybe also a technology as well."
- nickjj 8y agoI don't think I would pay for any of the core features, but that's mainly because I've been using Docker for 5 years with the current strategy of just about everything is open source. You pay if you want support and other enterprise features. Private hub repos are also reasonable to buy for most people because it's priced pretty competitively with rolling your own private registry on a cloud provider (ie. $7 / month for 5 repos isn't much more than $5 / month for the cheapest DO droplet but now you need to manage that machine yourself which is not worth the hassle for $2 less).
- weberc2 8y agoI would pay for an ecosystem of images that are vetted for security issues. They could even build an industry around security and privacy compliance and certification, which risk-averse companies (and those who want to do business with them) would pay for.