8 ms·

Best news in MS space, but probably worst news for open source

nickstinemates 12y ago
All of this is being contributed under the governance of the Docker project. If you believe in the Apache 2 license, then this should in no way be bad for Open Source.
- indrax 12y ago
  At one level, yes. At a lower level, this is strengthening a proprietary platform, and might lower adoption of FOSS platforms. At a higher level, co-opting an open source technology to deliver closed source software may indicate a strategic flaw in our approach to FOSS. On Microsoft's part this is clearly a continuation of 'embrace and extend'. They'll use docker to provide the functionality and build hype until they can build their own version into the OS by default. Docker on Windows becomes obsolete, and everyone runs apps on Azure.
clickbyclick 12y ago
My $.02 as someone involved in the space, it means: * Docker isn't going away anytime soon * All the big IaaS and PaaS players will be re-positioning to incorporate * That the pin has been pulled on the future acquisition They are becoming too big to be solo... and I'm thrilled for their team
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nickstinemates 12y ago
  I mean.. I guess? Maybe? Much better to focus on what we can control - making docker awesome for as many people as possible.
- teacup50 12y ago
  If this is true, then we're about to become locked-in to Docker's "kitchen sink" model of application packaging, where we're back to the bad old days of applications that can only run on a single platform. So much for the portability of modern language runtimes (Ruby, Java, Python, etc), or even being able to cross-compile to other platforms. Docker solves the wrong end of application packaging by essentially packaging up the entire damn global (and non-portable) OS environment.
  - nickstinemates 12y ago
    > Docker solves the wrong end of application packaging by essentially packaging up the entire damn global (and non-portable) OS environment. While that's the convention, I don't believe that will be the case going forward. I think it's a pretty negative and short sighted response. I saw a demo very recently of someone creating an extremely barebones container - they were able to trace the exact dependency tree of an application, isolate it, and put it in to a Docker container. All that existed was apps+dependency, no userland. That's the future, imo. > So much for the portability of modern language runtimes (Ruby, Java, Python, etc), or even being able to cross-compile to other platforms. Funny you should mention that, because cross compilation happens in Docker all of the time. Does that address your concern? If not I'd be happy to discuss further.
    - teacup50 12y ago
      > All that existed was apps+dependency, no userland. That's the future, imo. How do I run that on something that isn't Linux? The Mac OS X portability story is to run a Linux virtual machine (!). How is this a sane model when compared to building applications as a self-contained entity? > Funny you should mention that, because cross compilation happens in Docker all of the time. I can cross-compile a target for (Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, FreeBSD) and ship it as a self-contained application that runs on any of those systems?
      - Guvante 12y ago
        > I can cross-compile a target for (Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, FreeBSD) and ship it as a self-contained application that runs on any of those systems? Java did that and everyone went away from it since support became "least of all worlds" for anything non-trivial.
ahmett 12y ago
I wonder why is this the case. Microsoft is now teaming up with Docker, Google and others to make containers ecosystem and orchestration tools (like Kubernetes, libswarm) better.
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  Microsoft has a history of doing bad things. I don't know that the fear is warranted today, but "embrace and extend" was a real problem for a long time. Hell, Microsoft broke innovation on the web for a decade with IE. That wasn't an accident...it's just how Microsoft do. There are certainly people within Microsoft who want to cooperate with the rest of the world, and their behavior has been better in the past several years, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's built into their corporate culture to destroy or coopt anything that might pose a threat to them. And, it may be that the only reason they aren't still destroying and coopting on a wide scale is because they have so much less power today. The web is not owned by Microsoft; in the end, they lost that war, despite trying very hard. Anyway...Microsoft is not Google (and Google is not flawless in their relation to the rest of the web and Open Source). I think it's wise to proceed with caution whenever interacting with anything Microsoft has touched.
  - nickstinemates 12y ago
    At some point, you have to make a leap of faith. I take great comfort in the delivery and momentum of the Azure team inside of Microsoft. I'm optimistic that the future of Microsoft looks a lot like that than they have before. That said, I could be completely wrong, and it's important to trust, but verify. As a result, I'm pretty comfortable with the terms that ensure we protect our commitment to Open Source and in ensuring there is no special access given by partners, Microsoft or not. The project is the project, governed under the rules set forth by the community. Even members of Docker, Inc. have to advocate and fight for every change they make, as we do not believe in creating different classes of contribution. Hope that helps, would love to chat more
    - rch 12y ago
      The misalignment of interests is deeper than you think. That shouldn't affect this particular arrangement though; good luck!

All of this is being contributed under the governance of the Docker project. If you believe in the Apache 2 license, then this should in no way be bad for Open Source.

indrax 12y ago
At one level, yes. At a lower level, this is strengthening a proprietary platform, and might lower adoption of FOSS platforms. At a higher level, co-opting an open source technology to deliver closed source software may indicate a strategic flaw in our approach to FOSS. On Microsoft's part this is clearly a continuation of 'embrace and extend'. They'll use docker to provide the functionality and build hype until they can build their own version into the OS by default. Docker on Windows becomes obsolete, and everyone runs apps on Azure.

clickbyclick 12y ago

My $.02 as someone involved in the space, it means: * Docker isn't going away anytime soon * All the big IaaS and PaaS players will be re-positioning to incorporate * That the pin has been pulled on the future acquisition They are becoming too big to be solo... and I'm thrilled for their team

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nickstinemates 12y ago
I mean.. I guess? Maybe? Much better to focus on what we can control - making docker awesome for as many people as possible.
teacup50 12y ago
If this is true, then we're about to become locked-in to Docker's "kitchen sink" model of application packaging, where we're back to the bad old days of applications that can only run on a single platform. So much for the portability of modern language runtimes (Ruby, Java, Python, etc), or even being able to cross-compile to other platforms. Docker solves the wrong end of application packaging by essentially packaging up the entire damn global (and non-portable) OS environment.
- nickstinemates 12y ago
  > Docker solves the wrong end of application packaging by essentially packaging up the entire damn global (and non-portable) OS environment. While that's the convention, I don't believe that will be the case going forward. I think it's a pretty negative and short sighted response. I saw a demo very recently of someone creating an extremely barebones container - they were able to trace the exact dependency tree of an application, isolate it, and put it in to a Docker container. All that existed was apps+dependency, no userland. That's the future, imo. > So much for the portability of modern language runtimes (Ruby, Java, Python, etc), or even being able to cross-compile to other platforms. Funny you should mention that, because cross compilation happens in Docker all of the time. Does that address your concern? If not I'd be happy to discuss further.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    > All that existed was apps+dependency, no userland. That's the future, imo. How do I run that on something that isn't Linux? The Mac OS X portability story is to run a Linux virtual machine (!). How is this a sane model when compared to building applications as a self-contained entity? > Funny you should mention that, because cross compilation happens in Docker all of the time. I can cross-compile a target for (Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, FreeBSD) and ship it as a self-contained application that runs on any of those systems?
    - Guvante 12y ago
      > I can cross-compile a target for (Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, FreeBSD) and ship it as a self-contained application that runs on any of those systems? Java did that and everyone went away from it since support became "least of all worlds" for anything non-trivial.

ahmett 12y ago

I wonder why is this the case. Microsoft is now teaming up with Docker, Google and others to make containers ecosystem and orchestration tools (like Kubernetes, libswarm) better.

SwellJoe 12y ago
Microsoft has a history of doing bad things. I don't know that the fear is warranted today, but "embrace and extend" was a real problem for a long time. Hell, Microsoft broke innovation on the web for a decade with IE. That wasn't an accident...it's just how Microsoft do. There are certainly people within Microsoft who want to cooperate with the rest of the world, and their behavior has been better in the past several years, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's built into their corporate culture to destroy or coopt anything that might pose a threat to them. And, it may be that the only reason they aren't still destroying and coopting on a wide scale is because they have so much less power today. The web is not owned by Microsoft; in the end, they lost that war, despite trying very hard. Anyway...Microsoft is not Google (and Google is not flawless in their relation to the rest of the web and Open Source). I think it's wise to proceed with caution whenever interacting with anything Microsoft has touched.
- nickstinemates 12y ago
  At some point, you have to make a leap of faith. I take great comfort in the delivery and momentum of the Azure team inside of Microsoft. I'm optimistic that the future of Microsoft looks a lot like that than they have before. That said, I could be completely wrong, and it's important to trust, but verify. As a result, I'm pretty comfortable with the terms that ensure we protect our commitment to Open Source and in ensuring there is no special access given by partners, Microsoft or not. The project is the project, governed under the rules set forth by the community. Even members of Docker, Inc. have to advocate and fight for every change they make, as we do not believe in creating different classes of contribution. Hope that helps, would love to chat more
  - rch 12y ago
    The misalignment of interests is deeper than you think. That shouldn't affect this particular arrangement though; good luck!