9 ms·

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 lookin

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that everyone uses as an integral part of their workflow, and they're looking to get paid for it, which, I may be out of date here, was the entire ethos of this entire site for quite some time.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
Angry implies we're somehow out of line for believing that they are charging too high a price for a product, especially ones that we provide much of the value to. Think of those "by the pound" frozen yogurt and toppings places. One day they charge a fair price and sometime later they up their prices and start charging different amounts for different stuff, etc. I'm not angry if I dip on over to the grocery store and get my own stuff instead. Disappointed that we lost something cool, maybe, but that's on THEIR dumb choices.
vbezhenar 5y ago
Developers expect to get free tools.
- brigandish 5y ago
  Partly because devs tend to labour under the misapprehension that: a) pretty much any closed source project or online service can be done just as well by gluing together parts of open source projects… Which may be true in some cases, but the real misapprehension is the final part: b) …and it won't be difficult to do. The classic is the HN comment about Dropbox, but I see at least one comment a week saying something similar. No doubt there are many more.
  - motles 5y ago
    Can you clarify? Like are people saying that Dropbox is easy to replace with OSS? Like ALL it’s functionality?
    - brigandish 5y ago
      This is the (in)famous comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 though, as I wrote, I don't think it's particularly special, it's just the one that gained notoriety. I actually responded to one just this week, they're rife. The optimism bias is a problem even for programmers.
    - tpetry 5y ago
      It‘s a reference to this historic comment when dropbox was first shown on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    It's not a misapprehension: selling tools to tool-makers requires that you walk a very fine line. A lot of closed-source tools have pissed off developers enough to be replaced by usually-superior open-source versions, e.g. Git replacing BitKeeper because kernel developers were not happy with BK. Outside of very specialized tools, open source tools tend to attract more contributors and quickly overtake incumbents (see compilers). JetBrains is one of the few companies that bucks the trend, and one I gladly give money to regardless of my increasing VSCode usage. Had Dropbox been marketed at developers only, it would have been a spectacular failure in a world where inotify, rsync, cron and scp already existed.
detaro 5y ago
People hate it if you take the free toys away, especially after they've started using them because they were useful and free and now have grown used to them. + opinions about Docker are generally not universally positive, which doesn't help. It's not a niche thing only used by superfans, but something that has been promoted and pushed widely. Not everybody who uses it likes it, and it's more infrastructure than "cool tool".
guywhocodes 5y ago
There were competitors back then, I remember when docker was announced and their huge investment. To a large degree that broke us, we could not compete with free. Nor was docker safe to bundle in our application, now about a decade later it barely would be but at least others have done it now. To me they are the definition of worse is better, but clearly only for a while.
threeseed 5y ago
Many of us pay for developer tools so it's not a question of wanting to monetise their product. It's the way they've done it. Constantly harassing people to update their desktop versions as a means to drive them to pay is unacceptable. I have never seen such user-hostile behaviour from an established company like this and I for one will never ever give them a cent to reward them for it.
- sammorrowdrums 5y ago
  They also have an “upgrade” button in docker desktop that means purchase, rather than a version upgrade. I understand that they aren’t the first to call buying a licence an upgrade (although I’m not sure you get much software wise for doing so to warrant the term), but when you closed the update nag screen and then open it, it sort of looks like the button is for that. Chrome for example has update button in similar placement.
sangnoir 5y ago
> 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 1. Not every widely-used tool needs to be a VC-powered unicorn startup. I'd be pissed if Linus/the Linux Foundation started to demand a per-core licensing fee. I'd probably convince my organization to switch to a BSD, on principle. 2. No one likes a bait-and-switch, and lately, lots of companies see Free/Open Source Software as a "growth hack technique" rather than an actual philosophy, because they'll otherwise face headwinds with a closed-source product. This is akin to the underwear gnome strategy: 1. Author Open Source product 2. Get wide adoption 3. ??? 4. Profit
- KronisLV 5y ago
  The problem with this is that if Docker Inc goes under, you can say goodbye to Docker Hub: https://hub.docker.com/ https://hub.docker.com/ Sure, there are alternative repositories and for your own needs you can use anything from Sonatype Nexus, JFrog Artifactory, Gitlab Registry or any of the cloud based ones, but Hub disappearing would be a 100 times worse than the left pad incident in the npm world. Thus, whenever Docker Inc releases a new statement about some paid service that may or may not get more money from large corporations, i force myself to be cautiously optimistic, knowing that the community of hackers will pick up the slack and work around those tools on a more personal scale (e.g. Rancher Desktop vs Docker Desktop). That said, it might just be a Stockholm Syndrome of sorts, but can you imagine the fallout if Hub disappeared? Of course, you should never trust any large corporation, unless you have the source code that you can build the app from yourself. For example, Caddy v1 (a web server) essentially got abandoned with no support, so the few people still using it had to possibly build their own releases and fix the bugs themselves, which was only possible because of source code availability, before eventually migrating to v2 or something else. Therefore, it makes sense to always treat external dependencies, be it services, libraries, even tools like they're hostile - of course, you don't always have the resources to do that in depth, but for example seeing that VS Code is not the only option but we also have VS Codium (https://vscodium.com/ https://vscodium.com/) is encouraging.
  - 5y ago
jayd16 5y ago
Moving from a freely installed tool to a paid license tool changes the workflow. Its a pain in the ass to manage seats. Not only that, but it was a bait and switch. Lots of people are using docker because of the previous licensing rules and might have chosen another tool if the new licensing was already in place. I don't fault docker but I can see why people are annoyed and looking for a drop in replacement as well.
stefan_ 5y ago
Then everybody realized Docker was just idiosyncratic configuration layered on top of Linux cgroups and if they decide to encumber their base software we will just use the latter directly. And this is how podman/containerd/... came to be. There are no gifts, Docker isn't owed billions for trying to monetize cgroups.
- johannes1234321 5y ago
  > Then everybody realized Docker was just idiosyncratic configuration layered on top of Linux cgroups That is true and that is why the Docker runtime is still free. However this is about Docker desktop, which is mostly used on Mac and other platforms, where docker actually manages virtual machines etc. And yeah, all software is just a layer on top of moving bits around ... some of those layers create value, some less.
varispeed 5y ago
People are generally jealous. Docker feels small enough that "anyone could code it over the weekend", and so they think there is no way this is worth so much money. Of course nobody is trying to actually code something like this over the weekend, or once they do they just shut up. The cognitive dissonance and entitlement with some is just funny to watch. They have no problem buying stuff from billion dollar companies who treat workers as crap and don't pay taxes, but a smaller developer wants to make money off of their hard work? Nah... It's probably because a good chunk of the community is composed of privileged people, who never experienced the struggle.
- halostatue 5y ago
  I’d pay a reasonable amount for a headless docker desktop for macOS. That’s not on offer. Instead we get a client that’s almost as bloated as the Dropbox client.

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

Angry implies we're somehow out of line for believing that they are charging too high a price for a product, especially ones that we provide much of the value to. Think of those "by the pound" frozen yogurt and toppings places. One day they charge a fair price and sometime later they up their prices and start charging different amounts for different stuff, etc. I'm not angry if I dip on over to the grocery store and get my own stuff instead. Disappointed that we lost something cool, maybe, but that's on THEIR dumb choices.

vbezhenar 5y ago

Developers expect to get free tools.

brigandish 5y ago
Partly because devs tend to labour under the misapprehension that: a) pretty much any closed source project or online service can be done just as well by gluing together parts of open source projects… Which may be true in some cases, but the real misapprehension is the final part: b) …and it won't be difficult to do. The classic is the HN comment about Dropbox, but I see at least one comment a week saying something similar. No doubt there are many more.
- motles 5y ago
  Can you clarify? Like are people saying that Dropbox is easy to replace with OSS? Like ALL it’s functionality?
  - brigandish 5y ago
    This is the (in)famous comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 though, as I wrote, I don't think it's particularly special, it's just the one that gained notoriety. I actually responded to one just this week, they're rife. The optimism bias is a problem even for programmers.
  - tpetry 5y ago
    It‘s a reference to this historic comment when dropbox was first shown on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
- sangnoir 5y ago
  It's not a misapprehension: selling tools to tool-makers requires that you walk a very fine line. A lot of closed-source tools have pissed off developers enough to be replaced by usually-superior open-source versions, e.g. Git replacing BitKeeper because kernel developers were not happy with BK. Outside of very specialized tools, open source tools tend to attract more contributors and quickly overtake incumbents (see compilers). JetBrains is one of the few companies that bucks the trend, and one I gladly give money to regardless of my increasing VSCode usage. Had Dropbox been marketed at developers only, it would have been a spectacular failure in a world where inotify, rsync, cron and scp already existed.

detaro 5y ago

People hate it if you take the free toys away, especially after they've started using them because they were useful and free and now have grown used to them. + opinions about Docker are generally not universally positive, which doesn't help. It's not a niche thing only used by superfans, but something that has been promoted and pushed widely. Not everybody who uses it likes it, and it's more infrastructure than "cool tool".

guywhocodes 5y ago

There were competitors back then, I remember when docker was announced and their huge investment. To a large degree that broke us, we could not compete with free. Nor was docker safe to bundle in our application, now about a decade later it barely would be but at least others have done it now. To me they are the definition of worse is better, but clearly only for a while.

threeseed 5y ago

Many of us pay for developer tools so it's not a question of wanting to monetise their product. It's the way they've done it. Constantly harassing people to update their desktop versions as a means to drive them to pay is unacceptable. I have never seen such user-hostile behaviour from an established company like this and I for one will never ever give them a cent to reward them for it.

sammorrowdrums 5y ago
They also have an “upgrade” button in docker desktop that means purchase, rather than a version upgrade. I understand that they aren’t the first to call buying a licence an upgrade (although I’m not sure you get much software wise for doing so to warrant the term), but when you closed the update nag screen and then open it, it sort of looks like the button is for that. Chrome for example has update button in similar placement.

sangnoir 5y ago

> 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 1. Not every widely-used tool needs to be a VC-powered unicorn startup. I'd be pissed if Linus/the Linux Foundation started to demand a per-core licensing fee. I'd probably convince my organization to switch to a BSD, on principle. 2. No one likes a bait-and-switch, and lately, lots of companies see Free/Open Source Software as a "growth hack technique" rather than an actual philosophy, because they'll otherwise face headwinds with a closed-source product. This is akin to the underwear gnome strategy: 1. Author Open Source product 2. Get wide adoption 3. ??? 4. Profit

KronisLV 5y ago
The problem with this is that if Docker Inc goes under, you can say goodbye to Docker Hub: https://hub.docker.com/ https://hub.docker.com/ Sure, there are alternative repositories and for your own needs you can use anything from Sonatype Nexus, JFrog Artifactory, Gitlab Registry or any of the cloud based ones, but Hub disappearing would be a 100 times worse than the left pad incident in the npm world. Thus, whenever Docker Inc releases a new statement about some paid service that may or may not get more money from large corporations, i force myself to be cautiously optimistic, knowing that the community of hackers will pick up the slack and work around those tools on a more personal scale (e.g. Rancher Desktop vs Docker Desktop). That said, it might just be a Stockholm Syndrome of sorts, but can you imagine the fallout if Hub disappeared? Of course, you should never trust any large corporation, unless you have the source code that you can build the app from yourself. For example, Caddy v1 (a web server) essentially got abandoned with no support, so the few people still using it had to possibly build their own releases and fix the bugs themselves, which was only possible because of source code availability, before eventually migrating to v2 or something else. Therefore, it makes sense to always treat external dependencies, be it services, libraries, even tools like they're hostile - of course, you don't always have the resources to do that in depth, but for example seeing that VS Code is not the only option but we also have VS Codium (https://vscodium.com/ https://vscodium.com/) is encouraging.
- 5y ago

jayd16 5y ago

Moving from a freely installed tool to a paid license tool changes the workflow. Its a pain in the ass to manage seats. Not only that, but it was a bait and switch. Lots of people are using docker because of the previous licensing rules and might have chosen another tool if the new licensing was already in place. I don't fault docker but I can see why people are annoyed and looking for a drop in replacement as well.

stefan_ 5y ago

Then everybody realized Docker was just idiosyncratic configuration layered on top of Linux cgroups and if they decide to encumber their base software we will just use the latter directly. And this is how podman/containerd/... came to be. There are no gifts, Docker isn't owed billions for trying to monetize cgroups.

johannes1234321 5y ago
> Then everybody realized Docker was just idiosyncratic configuration layered on top of Linux cgroups That is true and that is why the Docker runtime is still free. However this is about Docker desktop, which is mostly used on Mac and other platforms, where docker actually manages virtual machines etc. And yeah, all software is just a layer on top of moving bits around ... some of those layers create value, some less.

varispeed 5y ago

People are generally jealous. Docker feels small enough that "anyone could code it over the weekend", and so they think there is no way this is worth so much money. Of course nobody is trying to actually code something like this over the weekend, or once they do they just shut up. The cognitive dissonance and entitlement with some is just funny to watch. They have no problem buying stuff from billion dollar companies who treat workers as crap and don't pay taxes, but a smaller developer wants to make money off of their hard work? Nah... It's probably because a good chunk of the community is composed of privileged people, who never experienced the struggle.

halostatue 5y ago
I’d pay a reasonable amount for a headless docker desktop for macOS. That’s not on offer. Instead we get a client that’s almost as bloated as the Dropbox client.