10 ms·

Let me say it; I love to see it. There's just something that strikes me as harmfully greedy about the idea of "Docker, a gajillion dollar company." There's jus

by jrm4 5y ago

Let me say it; I love to see it. There's just something that strikes me as harmfully greedy about the idea of "Docker, a gajillion dollar company." There's just no way that THAT kind of service could be tweaked to return that much to stakeholders without seriously screwing up the experience for people who need it to just work.

nicce 5y ago
They have failed to monetize one of the most important products on the web development. They have never provided profits. I don’t know about the greedy part, it is more about survival at this point. That is capitalism.
- code_biologist 5y ago
  Both of you are 100% right. Will be interesting to see how this seemingly no-win scenario plays out for the ecosystem and toolchain, beyond just the Docker products.
- edoceo 5y ago
  They block you from even registering your username unless you pay $25k to be in the "verified" program. I'm mad they hold my name hostage, and I'm not ready to spend $25k
  - nicce 5y ago
    What do you mean with ”hostage”?
    - edoceo 5y ago
      I mean my name isn't open (on Hub there is no user/edoceo page, but one cannot register that name either. And they say they respect trademark and to open a ticket, no response. But, I can join the verified publisher for only $25,000 USD. Not literally hostage but still feels dirty to me.
      - krainboltgreene 5y ago
        Uh, I have a userpage: https://hub.docker.com/u/krainboltgreene https://hub.docker.com/u/krainboltgreene
        forty 5y ago
        Yeah I have no idea what parent means. We have a company branded company namespace on dockerhub with just a dev account. There is indeed this verified publisher program, which is crazily expensive and I'm not sure what benefits it offers, which is probably the whole explanation of why dockerhub is not in a very good place :)
        edoceo 5y ago
        I'm saying, my name is blocked unless I pay
- pietromenna 5y ago
  And this is how lots of great products and ideas get killed. Failing to monetize them.
  - Datagenerator 5y ago
    Singularity containers not mentioned yet: are unique, they don't change on use and can bind mount resources, run without root privileges. You can actually execute the image files and include them in the well known Unix pipe sequences in your favorite shell. Really powerful stuff.
- young_unixer 5y ago
  If I was them I would've just sold the company to Microsoft a long time ago. I suspect that everyone, including users, would be better off that way.
  - nickstinemates 5y ago
    A fully integrated docker desktop + vscode would be a game changer for all involved. Docker + VSCode is already good, but more integration would be way better.
  - houseofzeus 5y ago
    They missed the boat on this, there were rumors Microsoft offered as much as $4bn back in ~2016. Whether that's true or not, if there was an exit to be had that was around the time it would have been viable.
  - iofiiiiiiiii 5y ago
    I thought this was the next logical step after Windows started incorporating containers - for several years you saw the two companies get closer together until suddenly they no longer seemed to be on speaking terms. Docker really missed their opportunity here.
    - mirekrusin 5y ago
      Doesn't Microsoft already make money from private (read enterprise) github docker registries/azure container registry while dockerhub is serving free stuff for them? Enterprise registry is about access control which Microsoft knows how to do, they already have enterprices in their ecosystem, no?
    - Godel_unicode 5y ago
      Not sure what you mean, Docker and Microsoft collaborated closely on Windows containers and Microsoft still recommends docker desktop: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowscontainers/about/ https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowsconta...
    - 5y ago
yzmtf2008 5y ago
Right, because Rancher Labs is not a gajillion dollar company: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/rancher-labs https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/rancher-labs
- notatoad 5y ago
  Rancher already sold. Suse has a functioning business model and makes money from real paying customers who want services in return, not just VCs who want more money in return. Docker has a valuation without a way to live up to it, which is scary because we all have to wonder what awful stuff they're going to have to do in order to make enough revenue for their investors to get their money back.
  - pelasaco 5y ago
    even though it's true that SUSE has a functioning business model, it worth to mention that SUSE belongs now to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQT_Partners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQT_Partners, a global investment organization, and they (EQT) are probably aiming just for a nice exit.
    - V99 5y ago
      ...and that also already happened, in the form of an IPO in Germany: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/SUSE:ETR https://www.google.com/finance/quote/SUSE:ETR
tannhaeuser 5y ago
"Docker, a gajillion dollar company" - LOL they barely get along. While I love Docker as a dev tool putting all strings into your hand to juggle customer environments, I fail to see the use case of Docker on Macs and Windows, which I'm understanding what Docker desktop is about. After all, docker images are about saving the resources/memory for a full VM and using Linux kernel-level compartments instead.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  I develop on my Windows machine and I use Docker for testing. We have a a microservices architecture in production and using Docker is easier and less messy to run locally parts of our infrastructure such as Postgres, Redis, Consul, Nats and some of the needed microservices instead of using VMs.
- bdamm 5y ago
  It’s awfuly handy being able to pop open little recipe OS configs while using my Mac.
- disordinary 5y ago
  Development. When you're developing in a container you can guaranty that the environment is the same on your PC or in the cloud. Also, the same argument you had for shared resources in Linux, when you're running Linux on a VM locally on your desktop because you want linux tools or applications, then you want as much memory management as possible.
- slotrans 5y ago
  "After all, docker images are about saving the resources/memory for a full VM and using Linux kernel-level compartments instead." That's not what container images are for. Container images give you a self-contained deployment artifact. The rest is marketing BS.
roughly 5y ago
Is there something I'm missing on the Docker story? Seems like they built something that everyone uses as an integral part of their workflow, and they're looking to get paid for it, which, I may be out of date here, was the entire ethos of this entire site for quite some time. Did the founder of Docker kick a bunch of puppies or something? Is there some reason I'm missing why we should be angry about being asked to pay for something that everyone uses for everything and derives a lot of value from? (This isn't to take away from Rancher, by the way - good on 'em, I'm all for competition in developer tools)
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > something that everyone uses Thankfully that's not the case. Even kubernetes, that still uses containers, moved away from docker.
- brodock 5y ago
  the opensource monetization playbook is pretty simple: you charge for the higher tier feature that local joe dont need but big corporate management/laywer/compliance mandate. anything from centralized authentication/auditing/monitoring/provisioning/reporting to checklist certifications gov demands.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Some people think developers should always work for free to enrich the executive and investing classes. I think that making enterprise pay for stuff that matters for enterprises while still providing open source for society should be seen as a positive, sustainable model.
- wvh 5y ago
  Docker, as the most used container tool, became a utility and hence it is expected to be free and unencumbered so it remains a helpful tool instead of a hindrance and liability to daily development for – well, perhaps the majority of developers by now. To try and monetise it would just assure that a free and open version will take over; which, I guess, is what we see happening now.
- jrm4 5y ago
Lutger 5y ago
Why? Docker provided a lot of value for free, screwed up their own business model and almost went bankrupt before being bought for scraps by Mirantis. Then they still make their technology available for free (that's right, docker is still free and they donated all the important stuff) and start asking money for just the wrapping and UI stuff in desktop. And just for big corps who can afford it. And still they get a lot of flak for it! These people just can't get a break. I don't understand why a lot of people in OSS community hate on them so much. What is up with that?

by jrm4 5y ago

nicce 5y ago

They have failed to monetize one of the most important products on the web development. They have never provided profits. I don’t know about the greedy part, it is more about survival at this point. That is capitalism.

code_biologist 5y ago
Both of you are 100% right. Will be interesting to see how this seemingly no-win scenario plays out for the ecosystem and toolchain, beyond just the Docker products.
edoceo 5y ago
They block you from even registering your username unless you pay $25k to be in the "verified" program. I'm mad they hold my name hostage, and I'm not ready to spend $25k
- nicce 5y ago
  What do you mean with ”hostage”?
  - edoceo 5y ago
    I mean my name isn't open (on Hub there is no user/edoceo page, but one cannot register that name either. And they say they respect trademark and to open a ticket, no response. But, I can join the verified publisher for only $25,000 USD. Not literally hostage but still feels dirty to me.
    - krainboltgreene 5y ago
      Uh, I have a userpage: https://hub.docker.com/u/krainboltgreene https://hub.docker.com/u/krainboltgreene
      - forty 5y ago
        Yeah I have no idea what parent means. We have a company branded company namespace on dockerhub with just a dev account. There is indeed this verified publisher program, which is crazily expensive and I'm not sure what benefits it offers, which is probably the whole explanation of why dockerhub is not in a very good place :)
        edoceo 5y ago
        I'm saying, my name is blocked unless I pay
pietromenna 5y ago
And this is how lots of great products and ideas get killed. Failing to monetize them.
- Datagenerator 5y ago
  Singularity containers not mentioned yet: are unique, they don't change on use and can bind mount resources, run without root privileges. You can actually execute the image files and include them in the well known Unix pipe sequences in your favorite shell. Really powerful stuff.
young_unixer 5y ago
If I was them I would've just sold the company to Microsoft a long time ago. I suspect that everyone, including users, would be better off that way.
- nickstinemates 5y ago
  A fully integrated docker desktop + vscode would be a game changer for all involved. Docker + VSCode is already good, but more integration would be way better.
- houseofzeus 5y ago
  They missed the boat on this, there were rumors Microsoft offered as much as $4bn back in ~2016. Whether that's true or not, if there was an exit to be had that was around the time it would have been viable.
- iofiiiiiiiii 5y ago
  I thought this was the next logical step after Windows started incorporating containers - for several years you saw the two companies get closer together until suddenly they no longer seemed to be on speaking terms. Docker really missed their opportunity here.
  - mirekrusin 5y ago
    Doesn't Microsoft already make money from private (read enterprise) github docker registries/azure container registry while dockerhub is serving free stuff for them? Enterprise registry is about access control which Microsoft knows how to do, they already have enterprices in their ecosystem, no?
  - Godel_unicode 5y ago
    Not sure what you mean, Docker and Microsoft collaborated closely on Windows containers and Microsoft still recommends docker desktop: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowscontainers/about/ https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowsconta...
  - 5y ago

yzmtf2008 5y ago

Right, because Rancher Labs is not a gajillion dollar company: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/rancher-labs https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/rancher-labs

notatoad 5y ago
Rancher already sold. Suse has a functioning business model and makes money from real paying customers who want services in return, not just VCs who want more money in return. Docker has a valuation without a way to live up to it, which is scary because we all have to wonder what awful stuff they're going to have to do in order to make enough revenue for their investors to get their money back.
- pelasaco 5y ago
  even though it's true that SUSE has a functioning business model, it worth to mention that SUSE belongs now to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQT_Partners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQT_Partners, a global investment organization, and they (EQT) are probably aiming just for a nice exit.
  - V99 5y ago
    ...and that also already happened, in the form of an IPO in Germany: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/SUSE:ETR https://www.google.com/finance/quote/SUSE:ETR

tannhaeuser 5y ago

"Docker, a gajillion dollar company" - LOL they barely get along. While I love Docker as a dev tool putting all strings into your hand to juggle customer environments, I fail to see the use case of Docker on Macs and Windows, which I'm understanding what Docker desktop is about. After all, docker images are about saving the resources/memory for a full VM and using Linux kernel-level compartments instead.

DeathArrow 5y ago
I develop on my Windows machine and I use Docker for testing. We have a a microservices architecture in production and using Docker is easier and less messy to run locally parts of our infrastructure such as Postgres, Redis, Consul, Nats and some of the needed microservices instead of using VMs.
bdamm 5y ago
It’s awfuly handy being able to pop open little recipe OS configs while using my Mac.
disordinary 5y ago
Development. When you're developing in a container you can guaranty that the environment is the same on your PC or in the cloud. Also, the same argument you had for shared resources in Linux, when you're running Linux on a VM locally on your desktop because you want linux tools or applications, then you want as much memory management as possible.
slotrans 5y ago
"After all, docker images are about saving the resources/memory for a full VM and using Linux kernel-level compartments instead." That's not what container images are for. Container images give you a self-contained deployment artifact. The rest is marketing BS.

roughly 5y ago

Is there something I'm missing on the Docker story? Seems like they built something that everyone uses as an integral part of their workflow, and they're looking to get paid for it, which, I may be out of date here, was the entire ethos of this entire site for quite some time. Did the founder of Docker kick a bunch of puppies or something? Is there some reason I'm missing why we should be angry about being asked to pay for something that everyone uses for everything and derives a lot of value from? (This isn't to take away from Rancher, by the way - good on 'em, I'm all for competition in developer tools)

goodpoint 5y ago
> something that everyone uses Thankfully that's not the case. Even kubernetes, that still uses containers, moved away from docker.
brodock 5y ago
the opensource monetization playbook is pretty simple: you charge for the higher tier feature that local joe dont need but big corporate management/laywer/compliance mandate. anything from centralized authentication/auditing/monitoring/provisioning/reporting to checklist certifications gov demands.
elzbardico 5y ago
Some people think developers should always work for free to enrich the executive and investing classes. I think that making enterprise pay for stuff that matters for enterprises while still providing open source for society should be seen as a positive, sustainable model.
wvh 5y ago
Docker, as the most used container tool, became a utility and hence it is expected to be free and unencumbered so it remains a helpful tool instead of a hindrance and liability to daily development for – well, perhaps the majority of developers by now. To try and monetise it would just assure that a free and open version will take over; which, I guess, is what we see happening now.
jrm4 5y ago

Lutger 5y ago

Why? Docker provided a lot of value for free, screwed up their own business model and almost went bankrupt before being bought for scraps by Mirantis. Then they still make their technology available for free (that's right, docker is still free and they donated all the important stuff) and start asking money for just the wrapping and UI stuff in desktop. And just for big corps who can afford it. And still they get a lot of flak for it! These people just can't get a break. I don't understand why a lot of people in OSS community hate on them so much. What is up with that?