4 ms·

You can always rebuild the dockerfile, or create an account increasing your pull limit, or just host all the free infrastructure they’ve already built, or use c

by clvx 2y ago

You can always rebuild the dockerfile, or create an account increasing your pull limit, or just host all the free infrastructure they’ve already built, or use competitors providing the same service with the risk of them doing exactly the same in the future. The difference with docker hub and just mirroring a linux repo is docker made it really easy for people so they don’t need it to get into infra weeds but the complexity was always there.

josephcsible 2y ago
> or just host all the free infrastructure they’ve already built, or use competitors providing the same service That would be more reasonable if they didn't go out of their way to make doing so painful: https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/7203 https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/7203
- benatkin 2y ago
  Yeah I switched to podman, I don’t even have docker installed anymore :)
- cpuguy83 2y ago
  I don't see how that particular issue is relevant here. Add a port number to the reference, problem solved. The reality is, DockerHub (though originally called the Docker Index), was the first Docker image registry to even exist, and it was the only one to exist when image references were created. Now, I would say there are definitely some issues you could have referenced here that would be more relevant (e.g. mirrors only working for DockerHub).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - benatkin 2y ago
    They're OCI images now, and Docker was largely a stolen idea from UNIXes* (unices?), including the term containers. As much as I like what Podman to open it up using Containerfiles and not defaulting to this, it might as well go even farther tweak the standard a bit - provide something like Dockerfile that's less golang-inspired and more linux-inspired, and improve the format for images - so the industry can move on from Docker lock-in. * https://www.aquasec.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-containers-from-1970s-chroot-to-docker-2016/ https://www.aquasec.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-containers-f...
    - yencabulator 2y ago
      There is nothing Go-like about Dockerfiles. The file naming seems to be an offshoot of Heroku's "Procfile" convention. I have no idea where the syntax came from, but it's superficially a very simple "SHOUTYCOMMAND arguments...\n" grammar with no structure beyond sequence-of-lines. Perhaps it's the more imperative cousin of the ".env" files popular with web devs.
      - benatkin 2y ago
        I guess it's kind of like assembly where COMMAND foo is like INSTRUCTION foo. Maybe it just clicked for me and I can't think of a syntax I'd prefer for it. Which now has me wondering about modeling syntaxes for other things on it. For some reason it reminded me of the WAC model from WebAssembly component model https://component-model.bytecodealliance.org/creating-and-consuming/composing.html#advanced-composition-with-the-wac-language https://component-model.bytecodealliance.org/creating-and-co... No particular comparison, but I'd like to understand how constructing a container image might compare to constructing a wasm module from components.
    - cpuguy83 2y ago
      Gee thanks for explaining the container ecosystem to me. Docker wasn't stolen from anything. It built on top of existing things, even worked on new things, and provided a nice abstraction to everything. > provide something like Dockerfile that's less golang-inspired and more linux-inspired What? Is the thing that's golang inspired the image references? OK...
      - benatkin 2y ago
        Co-opted it is what I mean by stole. The Dockerfile takes from golang IMO, it's intentionally very low on syntax. Just like go's text/template and html/template.
        cpuguy83 2y ago
        That's what makes it approachable (though I don't agree it has an semblance to go other than "FROM <ref>" being fully qualified (minus the carve-out for Hub), but even then it can absolutely act more like a local import if you have an image with that ref locally (or you can even override it in your build command in a couple of different ways). Also note, Docker can build whatever format you want, it just defaults to the Dockerfile format, but you can give it whatever syntax parser you want.

by clvx 2y ago

josephcsible 2y ago

> or just host all the free infrastructure they’ve already built, or use competitors providing the same service That would be more reasonable if they didn't go out of their way to make doing so painful: https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/7203 https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/7203

benatkin 2y ago
Yeah I switched to podman, I don’t even have docker installed anymore :)
cpuguy83 2y ago
I don't see how that particular issue is relevant here. Add a port number to the reference, problem solved. The reality is, DockerHub (though originally called the Docker Index), was the first Docker image registry to even exist, and it was the only one to exist when image references were created. Now, I would say there are definitely some issues you could have referenced here that would be more relevant (e.g. mirrors only working for DockerHub).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- benatkin 2y ago
  They're OCI images now, and Docker was largely a stolen idea from UNIXes* (unices?), including the term containers. As much as I like what Podman to open it up using Containerfiles and not defaulting to this, it might as well go even farther tweak the standard a bit - provide something like Dockerfile that's less golang-inspired and more linux-inspired, and improve the format for images - so the industry can move on from Docker lock-in. * https://www.aquasec.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-containers-from-1970s-chroot-to-docker-2016/ https://www.aquasec.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-containers-f...
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    There is nothing Go-like about Dockerfiles. The file naming seems to be an offshoot of Heroku's "Procfile" convention. I have no idea where the syntax came from, but it's superficially a very simple "SHOUTYCOMMAND arguments...\n" grammar with no structure beyond sequence-of-lines. Perhaps it's the more imperative cousin of the ".env" files popular with web devs.
    - benatkin 2y ago
      I guess it's kind of like assembly where COMMAND foo is like INSTRUCTION foo. Maybe it just clicked for me and I can't think of a syntax I'd prefer for it. Which now has me wondering about modeling syntaxes for other things on it. For some reason it reminded me of the WAC model from WebAssembly component model https://component-model.bytecodealliance.org/creating-and-consuming/composing.html#advanced-composition-with-the-wac-language https://component-model.bytecodealliance.org/creating-and-co... No particular comparison, but I'd like to understand how constructing a container image might compare to constructing a wasm module from components.
  - cpuguy83 2y ago
    Gee thanks for explaining the container ecosystem to me. Docker wasn't stolen from anything. It built on top of existing things, even worked on new things, and provided a nice abstraction to everything. > provide something like Dockerfile that's less golang-inspired and more linux-inspired What? Is the thing that's golang inspired the image references? OK...
    - benatkin 2y ago
      Co-opted it is what I mean by stole. The Dockerfile takes from golang IMO, it's intentionally very low on syntax. Just like go's text/template and html/template.
      - cpuguy83 2y ago
        That's what makes it approachable (though I don't agree it has an semblance to go other than "FROM <ref>" being fully qualified (minus the carve-out for Hub), but even then it can absolutely act more like a local import if you have an image with that ref locally (or you can even override it in your build command in a couple of different ways). Also note, Docker can build whatever format you want, it just defaults to the Dockerfile format, but you can give it whatever syntax parser you want.