20 ms·

Steve Singh stepping down as Docker CEO

• deanmoriarty 7y ago
  Anyone has any clues as to what the real reasons for his departure are?
  • nickstinemates 7y ago
    Running an open source business is very different than a proprietary one. The new CEO is filling those gaps.
  • zyang 7y ago
    Looks like the new ceo has a track record of selling open source companies. It's likely docker would be up for sale in one or two years time.
    • ibly31 7y ago
      Bearden was CEO of Hortonworks since 2012, almost 7 years before the Cloudera acquisition. Before that, Springsource for 4. I don't know Singh's reasons behind getting out, but Bearden doesn't seem to play the short game often, he's more of a long-term Open Source strategist.
      • krageon 7y ago
        It says something when we consider 4-7 years to be the "long term".
  • nurettin 7y ago
    Well, this happened right after the news about one of docker's databases being compromised, so perhaps he is being scapegoated. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19763413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19763413
    • dehrmann 7y ago
      That was my first thought, but they should have waited just a little longer so it looks like it was at least a thought-out decision, or put this announcement on hold for 6 weeks so no one's asking this question.
    • nickstinemates 7y ago
      There is practically 0 chance this is the case. Accountability doesn't work that way at Docker.
• benjaminwootton 7y ago
  Has there ever been a bigger missed opportunity in business than Docker managed to preside over? They could have created a huge business, but the product and go to market strategy has been awful. In my opinion, selling a PaaS was fundamentally the wrong call when they could have licensed an enterprise version of the engine and taken a commission on every server in existence. This is more a Microsoft or RHEL type business rather than a second rate Pivotal or OpenShift, which in themselves are being mullered by EKS/AKS in enterprise. The whole pitch towards legacy apps was also short termist distraction when investment dollars are all going to cloud native solutions. Legacy apps are a big business case but getting companies to invest in their legacy estate is still a tough ask. This angle should have been secondary to competing where they are naturally strong.
  • nickstinemates 7y ago
    > Has there ever been a bigger missed opportunity in business than Docker managed to preside over? They could have created a huge business, but the product and go to market strategy has been awful. The stories I could tell.. needless to say, looking back at the wasted opportunity is truly depressing.
    • pstuart 7y ago
      We like those kinds of stories around here...
      • nickstinemates 7y ago
        Like the time when Kubernetes, prior to it being announced, could have been a joint collaboration between Docker and Google.
        • honkycat 7y ago
          I am amazed at how Docker bricked on Docker Swarm so hard. I assert to this day that the only conclusion to choosing Docker Swarm is to rewrite a worse version of Kubernetes.
• segphault 7y ago
  I had a somewhat kafka-esque experience trying to install the Docker client on Windows recently. I just wanted the standalone executable so I could connect to Docker running on a headless Linux server on the local network. They don't make that available anymore for the latest version and force you to install Docker Desktop, which required two reboots and enabling Hyper-V, none of which should actually be necessary if all you are doing is connecting to a Linux box. It was a garbage experience. While I was trying, unsuccessfully, to figure out how to get the standalone binary, I noticed that the Docker website has been completely taken over by really low-signal marketing crap, and all of the actual technical substance is now hidden away in the documentation. The way that Docker is flailing around as it desperately seeks some kind of enterprise traction is really a huge turn off to their core audience.
  • deanmoriarty 7y ago
    The website has really been a bunch of crap for a few years now! I always have to access it via Google searches, even when I'm looking on extremely trivial pieces of documentation.
    • lildoggo 7y ago
      Yes! My team has recently moved our services/applications into docker through azure... Trying to understand what parts of docker we needed through their site was an absolute nightmare, it's all marketing stuff and very little on what each 'service' actually does.
  • Birch-san 7y ago
    Consider installing podman if all you want is a client compatible with Docker.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • GordonS 7y ago
    If you're on Windows 10, AFAIK you can install and run the Docker client in WSL. Totally agree about the Docker website - it's just a shameful torrent of marketing bollocks.
• thoman23 7y ago
  As someone who wants to pitch containerization at my enterprisey company, what is the takeaway message here? Do I still assume Docker/kubernetes is the way to go? Sounds like I don't want to stake my reputation on Docker Swarm? Is there another container platform this community recommends other than Docker?
  • reilly3000 7y ago
    There certainly are others, but Docker ‘just works’. Start with a small team and show some value/velocity.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • streetcat1 7y ago
    Yes. Assume Docker/kubernetes is the way to go. In general the sure bet right now is Docker / Kubernetes / Istio . You need all three for good micro-service platform.
    • zenlikethat 7y ago
      I'd hardly call Istio something you "need". Between Docker and Kubernetes you'll have your hands well full enough already and I'd recommend getting a good grip on those first and avoiding the service mess until you are very convinced your life will be worse if you don't slap Envoy, Mixer, Pilot, Citadel, and Galley on top. More complex != better.
      • streetcat1 7y ago
        I think that the OP is looking for a standard/container based enterprise platform, so I would install both since only both provide the complete solution. I.e. install and standardize on both, but start using features as needed (of course). I.e. I would rather find out any architecture issues with istio sooner, than trying to bolt it on top of some kuberentes only app.
      • williamallthing 7y ago
• mrmondo 7y ago
  "... our customers are materially reducing the costs of building, sharing and running their applications and they are increasing their innovation cycles by a factor of more than 10X." I can't stand this kind of marketing dribble, phrases like "increasing their innovation cycles by a factor of more than 10X" are not in themselves quantifiable and without that or context can be misleading. I don't (at all) disagree that the more wide-spread adoption of containerised application deployment and related work-flows has sped up the release and application life-cycle, but I think people should not aspire to talk about such benefits with such 'greasy' wording (especially when it comes to the word 'innovation').
  • GordonS 7y ago
    I loathe this kind of language too - but in Enterprise it's all too often management types that are the decision makers. As long as they keep lapping up this BS, companies will continue to spew it forth.
• nullwasamistake 7y ago
  IMO docker is the Myspace of containers. There's so many bugs I've just stopped caring. Like many devs, I have a bash alias to blow everything away when the daemon gets funky. And it behaves differently enough between platforms that, at least at my company, we've given up on running the same containers between different OS. I really think the endgame will be a VM based container system backwards compatible with docker. At VM level it's far easier to deal with kernel level incompatibility. Not to mention the constant security bugs that come from sharing a kernel. Somewhat ironically MS is already doing this in a way by hosting a Linux kernel in a VM for their docker implementation. They're only a step away from launching a kernel for each container. With how cheap ram is these days, sharing a kernel is pointless. You save maybe 50mb of ram per container in return for maddening implementation complexity and worse performance
  • piinbinary 7y ago
    > With how cheap ram is these days, sharing a kernel is pointless I don't think ram use is the reason to share the kernel - the main advantages are startup time and IO performance.
    • nullwasamistake 7y ago
      IO is actually better in VM these days due to PCI support for device sharing. IO sharing in containers uses virtualized software networks that generally don't perform as well as hardware that supports SR-IOV Startup time is definitely a consideration but you could lower this to container levels in many cases by keeping a couple VM's "warm" but not running
      • ecnahc515 7y ago
        Containers access disks and devices the same as anything on the host. For networking there's just as many options as with VMs. You can directly pass a specific NIC to the container without any overhead, and you can also use other options that have no more overhead than a regular network interface on the host. There's no way virtualized access to IO should be better than the host, so the containers should be no worse than that.
• windexh8er 7y ago
  I worked for Docker under Steve. Steve is a nice guy, but a horrible CEO for any current tech company. When I left Docker I told HR how disappointed I was in his response as a CEO with regard to recent layoffs. He went on and on about how this was about saving money to get to profitability in 2019 and he blamed himself, as he should have for missing. But then he didn't actually take any responsibility for his actions. He didn't take a pay cut, he had just hired his buddy Neil Charney for marketing and that guy should exit stage left right behind Steve. There's lots of leadership at Docker that's bad and Docker is very misdirected internally. For an entire quarter they kept telling us Microsoft was the path forward. Except most native Windows shops aren't doing a ton of containers. And if they are they're moving to Azure because of the credits. Then Microsoft kind of sort of vanished from the push. And it was kind of sort of IoT - but Docker Enterprise doesn't run on ARM and they were so far behind. Docker has bad leadership and nobody is steering the ship towards a destination, unfortunately. One last tidbit about Steve. Steve made his fortune off Concur being sold to Amex. So Docker, obviously, had to use Concur internally. We were told not to complain about Concur in Slack ever so as Steve would never see it. Well Steve, Concur is a flaming pile of garbage compared to modern alternatives. And that was where Steve was leading Docker. There are a lot of really good people left at Docker. Get rid of Steve, get rid of Steve's buddies, get rid of the sales leadership and circle back up with the product the team they have can build. I think Steve's departure implies he knew he'd never hit his goal of profitability this year. Bon voyage Steve! Hopefully it's not too late for Docker.
  • mathattack 7y ago
    I don’t know about Docker but I concur about Concur. It’s 1990s technology that’s only a quarter step above mainframe green screens. I will say that Docker’s 2.9 on Glassdoor is very low for a tech company.
    • windexh8er 7y ago
      I will say that rating is likely very close to how I'd rate the company overall during my short tenure there.
    • GordonS 7y ago
• xparco 7y ago
  Is this related to his Punjab town needing toilets in India?
• jaequery 7y ago
  I just want to say, Docker for OSX is a joke! It's been over 4 years, when is that (slow filesystem issue) ever going to get fixed? People are using solutions like NFS/Dinghy, something Docker for OSX should have out of the box. Cmon now. And if I were leading Docker, I'd look into the direction of a built-in virtual hosting solution, ie; jwilder-proxy and DNSMasq. I think that is what still stopping them from mass adoption.
  • stingraycharles 7y ago
    I think Docker's highest priority right now is monetization, which explains their lack of focus on OSX in favor for Windows; more enterprise users theoretically would have led to more money. Having said that, they didn't appear to be doing too well with that either.
    • bunderbunder 7y ago
      I'm not sure of the right path for monetization, but I am guessing, all the same, that their neglect of the OS X edition of Docker has hindered it. A decent number of Docker users are developing locally on OS X, even if they use another platform upstream. I doubt the "bugs and misfeatures being ignored for years on end" thing is making them particularly eager to just throw money at the company.
  • dehrmann 7y ago
    > I were leading Docker... I'm not even sure what I'd do. Google and k8s raised the bar so much that it overshadowed Docker the company. If it ceased to exist, Google would take up development just to drive GCP growth.
• jzl 7y ago
  What happens, hypothetically, if Docker the company shuts down?
  • nickstinemates 7y ago
    Revenue is good enough to have that not be a real consideration, just not good enough to meet its potential. It'll get picked up.
  • scaryclam 7y ago
    Not a lot really. The core parts aren't actually docker (containerd and runc do all the work and are not docker owned), so it's more a problem of how fast we can get tooling to replace the wrapper around them (that's docker, so the bit that would be more of an issue). Local development would be hit the hardest, though I'm sure things would carry on as-is for quite a while since the parts of docker that are mainly used for building and pushing containers is open source. Kubernetes already doesn't need docker to run, so migrating wouldn't be a nightmare. There are other image repositories everyone can use for the base images. CoreOS did a good thing by pushing for the OCI as it's made sure this exact situation isn't a disaster.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• Annatar 7y ago
  "Singh appeared tired, but a leader who was confident in his position and who saw a bright future for his company." A company (Docker) selling a product which you don't need because you can simply package your application and its configuration as an OS package has no future since it's selling snake oil.