6 ms·

Podman got introduced in the typical RedHat fashion... Which basically boils down to "F... you, I am taking your toys away, here's how you are going to do it fr

Podman got introduced in the typical RedHat fashion... Which basically boils down to "F... you, I am taking your toys away, here's how you are going to do it from now on. Oh doesn't work, well F... you then." I was a sysadmin managing primarily RedHat servers when they yanked Docker away and replaced it with Podman which was capable of handling absolutely zero of our use cases (they all relied on the docker daemon). It couldn't even build our simplest containers from Dockerfiles.

vetinari 5y ago
Well, it was somewhat more nuanced than 'f... you, I'm taking your toys away'. The Docker attitute wrt to cooperation with Redhat might explain somewhat more. Some Docker folks even wore t-shirts, that explain why Redhat did what they did.
- dralley 5y ago
  AFAIK the main points of contention were: * Systemd integration https://lwn.net/Articles/676938/ https://lwn.net/Articles/676938/ * CGroupsv2 - Docker was slow on adopting it, which was dragging down the ecosystem because no distros wanted to unilaterally break Docker by enabling it - so a Docker compatible replacement (ie. Podman) became a blocker for a lot of container functionality in CGroupsv2 that RH wanted to enable for customers. * Support for rootless / daemon-less containers (enabled by CGroupsv2) * A lot of enterprise customers wanted support for purely local, private container registries, Docker wanted people to be integrated with DockerHub and were reluctant (disclaimer: I work for Red Hat, but not on anything container-related, and I was still in college when all that drama was happening, so I don't have much insider perspective here) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28430167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28430167
  - chillfox 5y ago
    I wouldn’t have been upset if they had introduced Podman alongside Docker as a choice, then replaced it when it was ready, but they didn’t. They pushed it hard as a replacement before it was anywhere close to production ready. The way it was handled pretty much burned what remained of my trust in Redhat to the ground for me. Most of Redhats selling point is that it’s supposed to be stable and as dependable as a bag of hammers, except that’s a lie.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - vetinari 5y ago
      But Docker was not ready and was causing problems. If it wasn't, there would be no point for Podman in the first place. Otherwise, it would delay development of RHEL for years (see the Cgroup v2 issue, for example). I'm no Redhat fan, but they do have point here. They are not the baddy here.
e40 5y ago
I use docker, too, and it's absolutely trivial to add the .repo file for the official docker repo to /etc/yum.repos.d/. "Yanked away" is pretty strong and unwarranted, IMO.
- mindwok 5y ago
  The issue with this is that it's no longer covered by Red Hat's support and lifecycle, which is why most people pay for RHEL anyway.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    You can pay docker for business licences to get commercial support. At the level where you think about getting it, I honestly can't feel bad about the extra cost to the company.
- chillfox 5y ago
  Adding repos from third parties is not always allowed due to political/security considerations. Besides when paying for Redhat based on it being better/more "stable" then them breaking all your stuff by removing it is absolutely an issue.

vetinari 5y ago

Well, it was somewhat more nuanced than 'f... you, I'm taking your toys away'. The Docker attitute wrt to cooperation with Redhat might explain somewhat more. Some Docker folks even wore t-shirts, that explain why Redhat did what they did.

dralley 5y ago
AFAIK the main points of contention were: * Systemd integration https://lwn.net/Articles/676938/ https://lwn.net/Articles/676938/ * CGroupsv2 - Docker was slow on adopting it, which was dragging down the ecosystem because no distros wanted to unilaterally break Docker by enabling it - so a Docker compatible replacement (ie. Podman) became a blocker for a lot of container functionality in CGroupsv2 that RH wanted to enable for customers. * Support for rootless / daemon-less containers (enabled by CGroupsv2) * A lot of enterprise customers wanted support for purely local, private container registries, Docker wanted people to be integrated with DockerHub and were reluctant (disclaimer: I work for Red Hat, but not on anything container-related, and I was still in college when all that drama was happening, so I don't have much insider perspective here) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28430167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28430167
- chillfox 5y ago
  I wouldn’t have been upset if they had introduced Podman alongside Docker as a choice, then replaced it when it was ready, but they didn’t. They pushed it hard as a replacement before it was anywhere close to production ready. The way it was handled pretty much burned what remained of my trust in Redhat to the ground for me. Most of Redhats selling point is that it’s supposed to be stable and as dependable as a bag of hammers, except that’s a lie.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - vetinari 5y ago
    But Docker was not ready and was causing problems. If it wasn't, there would be no point for Podman in the first place. Otherwise, it would delay development of RHEL for years (see the Cgroup v2 issue, for example). I'm no Redhat fan, but they do have point here. They are not the baddy here.

e40 5y ago

I use docker, too, and it's absolutely trivial to add the .repo file for the official docker repo to /etc/yum.repos.d/. "Yanked away" is pretty strong and unwarranted, IMO.

mindwok 5y ago
The issue with this is that it's no longer covered by Red Hat's support and lifecycle, which is why most people pay for RHEL anyway.
- viraptor 5y ago
  You can pay docker for business licences to get commercial support. At the level where you think about getting it, I honestly can't feel bad about the extra cost to the company.
chillfox 5y ago
Adding repos from third parties is not always allowed due to political/security considerations. Besides when paying for Redhat based on it being better/more "stable" then them breaking all your stuff by removing it is absolutely an issue.