4 ms·

I don't understand why there's so much backlash on this. Let's be honest here. Docker has been directly involved with creating a container runtime and has pro

by nickjj 4y ago

I don't understand why there's so much backlash on this. Let's be honest here. Docker has been directly involved with creating a container runtime and has provided this for free with no strings attached for about 10 years. They've also hosted Docker images on the Docker Hub for free this whole time. Using Docker's runtime and official images are still free for everyone after this change. Now they are removing some of the free bits for hosting repos for teams but at the same time they offer a form you can fill out to continue to get free hosting for open source projects https://www.docker.com/community/open-source/application/ https://www.docker.com/community/open-source/application/. Why didn't Jose fill out this form? We've all benefited from Docker and in my opinion their pricing strategy is pretty reasonable around team licenses. I mean you could be a $500 million dollar company with 100 developers and end up paying about $10,000 for the year on Docker Desktop licenses, meanwhile your payroll on those devs will be like $20,000,000.

insertnamehere_ 4y ago
[flagged]
- girvo 4y ago
  You’d be right if Docker Desktop wasn’t still the first class way to get Linux containers with nice file mapping/networking/etc. on Windows and macOS. I do not miss the days of running my own Xhyve based virtual machine and all of the pain and horrible performance that came with it.
  - toyg 4y ago
    Docker Desktop is not that valuable, docker exploded before that even existed. In fact, it's probably the easiest bit of Docker to clone. The real value is in the repository, dockerfiles, and the deployment practices they enabled.
    - girvo 4y ago
      Docker Desktop is absolutely valuable. It might seem easy to clone, and yet Rancher/Podman Desktops aren’t even close to feature parity and the deep integration with other tools that Docker Desktop has, sadly. Not yet anyway. I’m hopeful these dumb decisions light some fires under some bums to get that work done.
      - toyg 4y ago
        It is valuable, just not that valuable. It is not their moat. Their moat is the mountain of dockerfiles out there, referencing thousands of images in Docker's repo. Nobody wants to redo all that work (repo setup, scripts, and images) if they can avoid it. That's the silliness of this move: they are forcing people to pay up or do that work. People will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying, so there is a serious risk that they will do the work; and once they're gone, they're gone.
  - Tostino 4y ago
    Rancher Desktop has been just fine for me.
    - girvo 4y ago
      Lucky, we ran into a heap of issues with it. Might be worth another try though, hopefully it can work well with VSCode remote containers and usbipd on Windows.
      - Tostino 4y ago
        I've been using it daily since Docker Desktop license change and won't say I haven't run into issues from time to time (waking from sleep on Windows for example). But overall, it's been solid and worked well for me. I use it with IntelliJ IDEA, can't speak for VSCode.
        girvo 4y ago
        I’ll have another crack at it this evening I think!
jon-wood 4y ago
My read of what José has said here is that the terms attached to that form rule out most open source projects using it because one of the clauses on being eligible is that "your organization must not seek to make a profit through services or by charging for higher tiers". This rules out basically any project where one or more contributors have made any money from consulting, which is ~all major open source projects.
- nickjj 4y ago
  > This rules out basically any project where one or more contributors have made any money from consulting, which is ~all major open source projects. You're right, he's built a multi-employee consulting agency around Elixir which he has linked in his Twitter bio. He even explicitly calls out at using Docker to install Livebook on its official installation page. So he's built a profitable business on top of Elixir and is now upset for having to pay $300 to continue using the tools that help him run his business? I don't get it. This is the cost of running a business. He could choose to self host the Docker bits but I'm guessing the costs would be higher than paying Docker's monthly fee. Alternatively he can spend the next XX years developing his own competitor to Docker and then pay out of pocket to host everyone's stuff for free indefinitely.
  - josevalim 4y ago
    I have replied at the root but I think you are misunderstanding my complaints. I completely agree that Docker doesn't own me anything. By the same token, I can express my frustration by them vaguely announcing that many Livebook and Elixir deployment pipelines may be broken _within a month_. Also, it took several years of _free work_ for Elixir to become profitable (and even then, we invest most of the profits right back into the community). And I consider well within my rights to recognize that their open source grant wouldn't have helped me back then and I doubt it will help others now. Overall, it is not about the cost. It is just that I would rather take my business elsewhere (paid or free). Here is a quick exercise: imagine I announce the next Elixir versions will require at least $300/year to use. I bet everyone would be fine with it. The cost of running a business and all that, right?
zigzag312 4y ago
> I don't understand why there's so much backlash on this. Because of bait and switch tactics.
pimterry 4y ago
1. Because they've privileged Docker Hub throughout all Docker tooling everywhere, and encouraged everybody to treat it as the central community hub of images. It's not just any registry: it's the core registry for the entire ecosystem, and they've very actively worked to ensure that state (rejecting all requests to make the default configurable, or to deprecate implicit registry references, etc). 2. Because the open-source application form excludes the vast majority of open-source projects. E.g. Curl isn't eligible because the founder additionally offers paid support. I imagine Elixir won't be either as the founder profits from it by running an Elixir consultancy (https://dashbit.co/ https://dashbit.co/). Docker Inc itself is marketed as an open-source project, but clearly wouldn't be eligible either. There's no revenue limits, no flexibility, just 'no plan towards >$0 revenue ever'. This is not most people's definition of 'open source'. 3. Because although yes it is a lot of traffic, they're trying to charge the community orgs to host images, whilst simultaneously they already charging the end users to pull these images too! They tightened the rate limits in 2020 so that any serious download usage as a client already requires a paid account. 4. Because they've given only 30 days notice before they'll drop all the existing images, with no redirection or migration options at all - just "pay up or we delete everything". 5. Because this will break every existing reference to every deleted image everywhere, and there are _millions_ (because as above, they've encouraged everybody to treat Docker Hub as the core ecosystem registry), from blog posts/documentation/tutorials to CI jobs to deployment definitions, and this is going to be a massive bomb that hits the industry & huge numbers of developers (even their paying customers!) when it lands in 29 days. If you're a substantial company with 100s of devs, sure, you should be paying for Docker. If you're a 3-person community project publishing open-source images to Docker Hub that these companies are using, making a tiddly income with commercial support, you should not (and in practice, you probably can't).
- jacooper 4y ago
  What's probably going to happen is GHCR becoming the main registry for everything, further strengthening GothUb place in the FOSS world.
Existenceblinks 4y ago
I'm still unsure whether Docker saves companies money or not. Had spent 10 hours+ for each docker network issue at a company. Scripting is cumbersome but it's mostly write-once, easier to dev/debug/deploy etc.

by nickjj 4y ago

insertnamehere_ 4y ago

[flagged]

girvo 4y ago
You’d be right if Docker Desktop wasn’t still the first class way to get Linux containers with nice file mapping/networking/etc. on Windows and macOS. I do not miss the days of running my own Xhyve based virtual machine and all of the pain and horrible performance that came with it.
- toyg 4y ago
  Docker Desktop is not that valuable, docker exploded before that even existed. In fact, it's probably the easiest bit of Docker to clone. The real value is in the repository, dockerfiles, and the deployment practices they enabled.
  - girvo 4y ago
    Docker Desktop is absolutely valuable. It might seem easy to clone, and yet Rancher/Podman Desktops aren’t even close to feature parity and the deep integration with other tools that Docker Desktop has, sadly. Not yet anyway. I’m hopeful these dumb decisions light some fires under some bums to get that work done.
    - toyg 4y ago
      It is valuable, just not that valuable. It is not their moat. Their moat is the mountain of dockerfiles out there, referencing thousands of images in Docker's repo. Nobody wants to redo all that work (repo setup, scripts, and images) if they can avoid it. That's the silliness of this move: they are forcing people to pay up or do that work. People will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying, so there is a serious risk that they will do the work; and once they're gone, they're gone.
- Tostino 4y ago
  Rancher Desktop has been just fine for me.
  - girvo 4y ago
    Lucky, we ran into a heap of issues with it. Might be worth another try though, hopefully it can work well with VSCode remote containers and usbipd on Windows.
    - Tostino 4y ago
      I've been using it daily since Docker Desktop license change and won't say I haven't run into issues from time to time (waking from sleep on Windows for example). But overall, it's been solid and worked well for me. I use it with IntelliJ IDEA, can't speak for VSCode.
      - girvo 4y ago
        I’ll have another crack at it this evening I think!

jon-wood 4y ago

My read of what José has said here is that the terms attached to that form rule out most open source projects using it because one of the clauses on being eligible is that "your organization must not seek to make a profit through services or by charging for higher tiers". This rules out basically any project where one or more contributors have made any money from consulting, which is ~all major open source projects.

nickjj 4y ago
> This rules out basically any project where one or more contributors have made any money from consulting, which is ~all major open source projects. You're right, he's built a multi-employee consulting agency around Elixir which he has linked in his Twitter bio. He even explicitly calls out at using Docker to install Livebook on its official installation page. So he's built a profitable business on top of Elixir and is now upset for having to pay $300 to continue using the tools that help him run his business? I don't get it. This is the cost of running a business. He could choose to self host the Docker bits but I'm guessing the costs would be higher than paying Docker's monthly fee. Alternatively he can spend the next XX years developing his own competitor to Docker and then pay out of pocket to host everyone's stuff for free indefinitely.
- josevalim 4y ago
  I have replied at the root but I think you are misunderstanding my complaints. I completely agree that Docker doesn't own me anything. By the same token, I can express my frustration by them vaguely announcing that many Livebook and Elixir deployment pipelines may be broken _within a month_. Also, it took several years of _free work_ for Elixir to become profitable (and even then, we invest most of the profits right back into the community). And I consider well within my rights to recognize that their open source grant wouldn't have helped me back then and I doubt it will help others now. Overall, it is not about the cost. It is just that I would rather take my business elsewhere (paid or free). Here is a quick exercise: imagine I announce the next Elixir versions will require at least $300/year to use. I bet everyone would be fine with it. The cost of running a business and all that, right?

zigzag312 4y ago

> I don't understand why there's so much backlash on this. Because of bait and switch tactics.

pimterry 4y ago

1. Because they've privileged Docker Hub throughout all Docker tooling everywhere, and encouraged everybody to treat it as the central community hub of images. It's not just any registry: it's the core registry for the entire ecosystem, and they've very actively worked to ensure that state (rejecting all requests to make the default configurable, or to deprecate implicit registry references, etc). 2. Because the open-source application form excludes the vast majority of open-source projects. E.g. Curl isn't eligible because the founder additionally offers paid support. I imagine Elixir won't be either as the founder profits from it by running an Elixir consultancy (https://dashbit.co/ https://dashbit.co/). Docker Inc itself is marketed as an open-source project, but clearly wouldn't be eligible either. There's no revenue limits, no flexibility, just 'no plan towards >$0 revenue ever'. This is not most people's definition of 'open source'. 3. Because although yes it is a lot of traffic, they're trying to charge the community orgs to host images, whilst simultaneously they already charging the end users to pull these images too! They tightened the rate limits in 2020 so that any serious download usage as a client already requires a paid account. 4. Because they've given only 30 days notice before they'll drop all the existing images, with no redirection or migration options at all - just "pay up or we delete everything". 5. Because this will break every existing reference to every deleted image everywhere, and there are _millions_ (because as above, they've encouraged everybody to treat Docker Hub as the core ecosystem registry), from blog posts/documentation/tutorials to CI jobs to deployment definitions, and this is going to be a massive bomb that hits the industry & huge numbers of developers (even their paying customers!) when it lands in 29 days. If you're a substantial company with 100s of devs, sure, you should be paying for Docker. If you're a 3-person community project publishing open-source images to Docker Hub that these companies are using, making a tiddly income with commercial support, you should not (and in practice, you probably can't).

jacooper 4y ago
What's probably going to happen is GHCR becoming the main registry for everything, further strengthening GothUb place in the FOSS world.

Existenceblinks 4y ago

I'm still unsure whether Docker saves companies money or not. Had spent 10 hours+ for each docker network issue at a company. Scripting is cumbersome but it's mostly write-once, easier to dev/debug/deploy etc.