6 ms·

The images you mention (alpine, node, golang) are all so-called “Docker Official Images”. Those are all the ones without a slash as the namespace separator in t

The images you mention (alpine, node, golang) are all so-called “Docker Official Images”. Those are all the ones without a slash as the namespace separator in them: https://hub.docker.com/search?q=&type=image&image_filter=official https://hub.docker.com/search?q=&type=image&image_filter=off... They are versioned and reviewed here: https://github.com/docker-library/official-images https://github.com/docker-library/official-images I don't expect them to go away. Disclosure: I maintain two of them (spiped, adminer).

karamanolev 4y ago
Useful information, bad look for Docker - "Oh, no slash as the namespace separator. Good and easy way to tell, that's how I would've done it!".
- cshimmin 4y ago
  I mean, it's not a terrible convention. On the website they have a badge ("docker official image"), but devs aren't usually looking at the website, they're looking at their Dockerfile in vim or whatever. This is a straightforward way to communicate that semantically through namespacing. Still, shame on docker for the rug-pull.
  - zamnos 4y ago
    It's better than none, but explicit over implicit. If it were namespaced like PULL docker.org/offical/alpine:latest that would be better, imo.
    - _cenw 4y ago
      They are also available at docker.io/library/alpine and equivalent, and I'd advise anyone to start using this format as more distros might break the default registry[1]. [1]: https://man.archlinux.org/man/containers-registries.conf.5.en#NOTE:_RISK_OF_USING_UNQUALIFIED_IMAGE_NAMES https://man.archlinux.org/man/containers-registries.conf.5.e...
legohead 4y ago
"don't expect" or "for certain"? Can't really plan ahead without some kind of certainty.
- Strom 4y ago
  There is no real distinction between those two phrases here, because the person using those phrases isn't ultimately in control.
  - TimWolla 4y ago
    Indeed. While I do maintain two of them, that maintenance is effectively equivalent to being an open source maintainer or open source contributor. I do not have any non-public knowledge about the Docker Official Images program. My interaction with the Docker Official Images program can be summed up as “my PRs to docker-library/official-images” (https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pulls/TimWolla https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pulls/TimW...) and the #docker-library IRC channel on Libera.Chat.
  - rcme 4y ago
    Even if they were fully in control, there still would not be a distinction because whoever is controller this decision could change their mind at a later date.
    - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
      the difference is that the person in control would be attesting to their state of mind, versus the person out of control attesting to their understanding of the relevant circumstances.
    - hosh 4y ago
      My analysis of this: After Kubernetes became the de-facto container orchestration platform, Docker sold a bunch of their business to Mirantis. They shifted their marketing and positioning from enterprise to developers. From public sources, it sounds like their strategy is doing pretty well. The question then is, does Docker look like they are committed to open-source and the open-source ecosystem? 1. You would think that a developer-focused strategy would involve open-source, and that doing things to decrease their influence on the open-source world would reduce their influence, branding, and narrow their funnel. (But maybe not. Are the people paying for Docker Desktop also big open-source users and advocates?). 2. It sounds like Docker has full-time internal teams that maintain the official Docker images and accept PRs from upstream. 3. Docker rate-limited metadata access for public repositories. Is that a signal for weakening support for open-source? 4. According to the article, the Docker Open Source program is out-of-touch ... 5. ... But they may still be paying attention to the big foundations like CNCF and Apache. So the images people depend upon for those may not be going away anytime soon So I would look for other signals for diminishing commitment to open-source: - If several of the larger projects pulls out of hosting on Docker Hub - If the internal Docker teams are getting let go - If the rate at which PRs are accepted for the official images are reduced - If the official images are getting increasingly out of sync with upstream - Some other signals that matches
_cenw 4y ago
One should get in the habit of prefixing them with docker.io/library through, simply because docker's claim on being the default namespace is unacceptable (and also not true on RHEL-adjacent distros)

karamanolev 4y ago

Useful information, bad look for Docker - "Oh, no slash as the namespace separator. Good and easy way to tell, that's how I would've done it!".

cshimmin 4y ago
I mean, it's not a terrible convention. On the website they have a badge ("docker official image"), but devs aren't usually looking at the website, they're looking at their Dockerfile in vim or whatever. This is a straightforward way to communicate that semantically through namespacing. Still, shame on docker for the rug-pull.
- zamnos 4y ago
  It's better than none, but explicit over implicit. If it were namespaced like PULL docker.org/offical/alpine:latest that would be better, imo.
  - _cenw 4y ago
    They are also available at docker.io/library/alpine and equivalent, and I'd advise anyone to start using this format as more distros might break the default registry[1]. [1]: https://man.archlinux.org/man/containers-registries.conf.5.en#NOTE:_RISK_OF_USING_UNQUALIFIED_IMAGE_NAMES https://man.archlinux.org/man/containers-registries.conf.5.e...

legohead 4y ago

"don't expect" or "for certain"? Can't really plan ahead without some kind of certainty.

Strom 4y ago
There is no real distinction between those two phrases here, because the person using those phrases isn't ultimately in control.
- TimWolla 4y ago
  Indeed. While I do maintain two of them, that maintenance is effectively equivalent to being an open source maintainer or open source contributor. I do not have any non-public knowledge about the Docker Official Images program. My interaction with the Docker Official Images program can be summed up as “my PRs to docker-library/official-images” (https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pulls/TimWolla https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pulls/TimW...) and the #docker-library IRC channel on Libera.Chat.
- rcme 4y ago
  Even if they were fully in control, there still would not be a distinction because whoever is controller this decision could change their mind at a later date.
  - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
    the difference is that the person in control would be attesting to their state of mind, versus the person out of control attesting to their understanding of the relevant circumstances.
  - hosh 4y ago
    My analysis of this: After Kubernetes became the de-facto container orchestration platform, Docker sold a bunch of their business to Mirantis. They shifted their marketing and positioning from enterprise to developers. From public sources, it sounds like their strategy is doing pretty well. The question then is, does Docker look like they are committed to open-source and the open-source ecosystem? 1. You would think that a developer-focused strategy would involve open-source, and that doing things to decrease their influence on the open-source world would reduce their influence, branding, and narrow their funnel. (But maybe not. Are the people paying for Docker Desktop also big open-source users and advocates?). 2. It sounds like Docker has full-time internal teams that maintain the official Docker images and accept PRs from upstream. 3. Docker rate-limited metadata access for public repositories. Is that a signal for weakening support for open-source? 4. According to the article, the Docker Open Source program is out-of-touch ... 5. ... But they may still be paying attention to the big foundations like CNCF and Apache. So the images people depend upon for those may not be going away anytime soon So I would look for other signals for diminishing commitment to open-source: - If several of the larger projects pulls out of hosting on Docker Hub - If the internal Docker teams are getting let go - If the rate at which PRs are accepted for the official images are reduced - If the official images are getting increasingly out of sync with upstream - Some other signals that matches

_cenw 4y ago

One should get in the habit of prefixing them with docker.io/library through, simply because docker's claim on being the default namespace is unacceptable (and also not true on RHEL-adjacent distros)