4 ms·
We've tried to be plainly open that going the 'open core' route is in no ones best interest. Swappable storage engines will be easier to create over time, not
by nickstinemates 13y ago
We've tried to be plainly open that going the 'open core' route is in no ones best interest.
Swappable storage engines will be easier to create over time, not less. There's also a ZFS branch, but the reality is people spent time and resources on getting BTRFS (which has been experimental for >6mos) instead of ZFS.
Docker development works a lot like Linux development (just on a much, much smaller scale.) If there's an area where you're comfortable committing, the barrier to entry is minimal. All you need is 2 maintainers to agree to your addition and its merged in. So get on it!
- midas007 13y agoGurjeet is on it. Edit - docker's great. if I were an investor, how would you guys monetize it? prof svcs, support? I could see folks paying for a dashboard, cloud controller w/ api and an easy-to-deploy openstack-like setup.
- nickstinemates 13y agoWe were pretty open with plans in our Series B announcement a couple of weeks ago. Basically - investing more in open source, investing in the docker platform, investing in commercial capabilities So as you can imagine, we're meeting with a ton of companies and hiring really good people who want to be part of something pretty amazing.
- mwcampbell 13y agoWhy isn't open core in Docker Inc.'s best interest? I wouldn't rule it out just yet. One nice thing about Docker's choice of license is that anyone can do an enhanced commercial version, not just Docker Inc.