4 ms·
> I don't get the whole "Let's spend weeks rewriting our build infrastructure to save $240 a year" strategy going on here. I think that's because 2 things are
by ayewo 5y ago
> I don't get the whole "Let's spend weeks rewriting our build infrastructure to save $240 a year" strategy going on here.
I think that's because 2 things are at play here:
1. People are busy and often rarely read past the headline announcing the change, so they are unlikely to know of the caveat.
2. People don't like being taxed at the infrastructure level, so the default price for plumbing tools like Docker is $0. What's the assurance that the $240/yr will not rise to $2400/yr a year later, especially if they fail to hit their revenue numbers? Once the glove comes off, it's so much safer to cap your costs today by seeking out an alternative, rather than be confronted with uncapped costs (or any kind of vendor uncertainty) in the future.
- yunohn 5y agoBut who is guaranteeing a free alternative? Someone has to build and maintain it, and as time goes by, they will also want compensation.
- doctor_eval 5y agoI think there’s a third problem. Docker on MacOS is still pretty buggy. After all these years there are still issues that cause it to use 30% CPU when idle on my Mac, and I’m sure I’m not alone. If docker on Mac was rock solid then I’d probably look more kindly on this. We aren’t even big enough for this to affect us, it is just one more reason for us to look at how we can remove docker from our desktop infrastructure and replace it with something that makes us more efficient.
- laurencerowe 5y ago> After all these years there are still issues that cause it to use 30% CPU when idle on my Mac, and I’m sure I’m not alone. I had the same frustrations until the other day I saw a tip to enable 'Use the new Virtualization framework' under Preferences -> Experimental Features. Since then Docker's background CPU usage has dropped to 1% and I no longer bother stopping it when I'm not using it.