3 ms·

Docker's overreach seems to resemble the overreach of Joyent in the io.js world. It's really hard to regain trust and momentum once the community starts to ques

by numair 12y ago

Docker's overreach seems to resemble the overreach of Joyent in the io.js world. It's really hard to regain trust and momentum once the community starts to question you; in economic terms this would be termed as "a spike in transaction costs." If I were Docker, my next project would be a meetup/presentation/etc explaining how my new initiatives are for the benefit of the community, rather than just self-serving wheel reinvention. This isn't a consumer-facing business; the opinions of concerned developers can make or break them.

Alupis 12y ago
> my next project would be a meetup/presentation/etc explaining how my new initiatives... You mean like the conferences they held before they even had a viable product? Docker has stampeded onto the scene with zero competition, and the Parent comment is totally right -- we should take a good minute and consider that we are head-first rushing to implement everywhere a product made and perpetuated by a for-profit company who's end goal is literally to be on every server and be the de facto implementation so that once they start to monetize the product, you will have little choice but to funnel support funds into their company. That's petrifying to me, because it means if realized, my company will be at the whims of Docker, not the other way around. Furthermore, the backlash from the Docker creator himself the other day on the announcement by CoreOS, it really seems Docker never anticipated ever having any competition in this space, and have taken active steps to ensure they are their own custom thing that is not compatible with other existing or future container implementations. Perhaps this will change now, and they will work with CoreOS to clearly define a universal specification for a container which can be portable between any implementation, but signs show they don't feel it's in their company's best interest to do so (and honestly it isn't in their best interest, but it's in the community's best interest for sure).
- ldlework 12y ago
  > You mean like the conferences they held before they even had a viable product? The conference was awesome and there was plenty to announce at that point. It certainly helped drive home the conceptualization of containerization for many. > we should take a good minute and consider You're right we should consider - except what you're doing is making charges like; "we are head-first rushing", "perpetuated by a for-profit company", "my company will be at the whims of Docker" And other fear in this thread without providing your audience with the context of: - for profit companies backing an innumerable number of major technologies in a variety of fields since technology was a thing - most of the development of Docker happens outside of Docker Inc - the project has an independent governance board - the project has been nothing but the epitome of successful transparent open source If Docker ends up achieving a cohesive ecosystem of holistically designed pieces solving one of the most difficult unsolved problems (a class of problems, really) in modern computing benefiting so many then is it really a problem paying Docker Inc for first class support to all of that? I imagine there are already companies selling support for Docker other than Docker Inc It seems like you're the one imagining there is going to be no competition, honestly.

by numair 12y ago

Alupis 12y ago

> my next project would be a meetup/presentation/etc explaining how my new initiatives... You mean like the conferences they held before they even had a viable product? Docker has stampeded onto the scene with zero competition, and the Parent comment is totally right -- we should take a good minute and consider that we are head-first rushing to implement everywhere a product made and perpetuated by a for-profit company who's end goal is literally to be on every server and be the de facto implementation so that once they start to monetize the product, you will have little choice but to funnel support funds into their company. That's petrifying to me, because it means if realized, my company will be at the whims of Docker, not the other way around. Furthermore, the backlash from the Docker creator himself the other day on the announcement by CoreOS, it really seems Docker never anticipated ever having any competition in this space, and have taken active steps to ensure they are their own custom thing that is not compatible with other existing or future container implementations. Perhaps this will change now, and they will work with CoreOS to clearly define a universal specification for a container which can be portable between any implementation, but signs show they don't feel it's in their company's best interest to do so (and honestly it isn't in their best interest, but it's in the community's best interest for sure).

ldlework 12y ago
> You mean like the conferences they held before they even had a viable product? The conference was awesome and there was plenty to announce at that point. It certainly helped drive home the conceptualization of containerization for many. > we should take a good minute and consider You're right we should consider - except what you're doing is making charges like; "we are head-first rushing", "perpetuated by a for-profit company", "my company will be at the whims of Docker" And other fear in this thread without providing your audience with the context of: - for profit companies backing an innumerable number of major technologies in a variety of fields since technology was a thing - most of the development of Docker happens outside of Docker Inc - the project has an independent governance board - the project has been nothing but the epitome of successful transparent open source If Docker ends up achieving a cohesive ecosystem of holistically designed pieces solving one of the most difficult unsolved problems (a class of problems, really) in modern computing benefiting so many then is it really a problem paying Docker Inc for first class support to all of that? I imagine there are already companies selling support for Docker other than Docker Inc It seems like you're the one imagining there is going to be no competition, honestly.