3 ms·

we need to separate Docker the open source container runtime from Docker Inc: - the former is managed by the Docker Governance Advisory Board with people from

by ABS 12y ago

we need to separate Docker the open source container runtime from Docker Inc: - the former is managed by the Docker Governance Advisory Board with people from many companies and individuals, see minute of the first meeting here for example: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JfWNzfwptsMgSx82QyWH_Aj0DRKyZKxYQ1aursxNorg/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JfWNzfwptsMgSx82QyWH_Aj0... - the latter is a company that naturally needs to be profitable. In fact I'm surprised so many people find Docker Inc. developing a "platform" around Docker a change of direction, let alone unexpected. It's nothing new and in fact I feel like Docker Inc choice is the "right" one: historically Commercial Open Source companies have had only a handful of choices to monetise: 1) selling support and services around the open source product, 2) going Open Core, 3) developing orthogonal, complementary commercial products around the main open source one and 4) be acquired :-D RedHat is really the only one that managed to make option 1 work at scale and it looks like a black swan the longer time goes by. Option 2 was a bad idea to begin with a few years ago and I'm still surprised there are companies going for it today (I experienced it on my own skin). Option 4 is what it is. So Option 3 is really the only reasonable way to go: keep the open source product really open source and make money with complementary products. I kind of expected this to be the way to go for Docker Inc all along, with a little niggle at the back of my mind fearing they would go for Open Core instead.

jbeda 12y ago
The advisory board is just that -- advisory. It has absolutely no teeth. The open source project is 100% owned by Docker, Inc. Solomon believes strongly in a "firewall" between OSS Docker and Docker, Inc -- but it breaks down in various places where it comes to any online service. Examples: * The docker hub gets special privileges in the image namespace. It isn't built on DNS but instead rooted in a namespace owned by Docker, Inc. * The newly announced swarm depends on a discovery endpoint that (as far as I've seen) is closed source and undocumented. I'd love to see the online parts of the OSS docker project have the same "firewall" as Solomon believe he holds for the OSS components.
- jbeda 12y ago
  Update: the discovery endpoint is pretty simple and now documented: https://github.com/docker/swarm/blob/master/discovery/README.md https://github.com/docker/swarm/blob/master/discovery/README...
23david 12y ago
With their (current) control of the main docker index and namespace, they could have stuck with a simple GitHub model (pay for private indexes) and would have been fine. With the community goodwill that they had, it would have been impossible to compete with them. The reason more people aren't paying for private indexes at this point is because the service is still slow and unreliable, and the UI needs serious work. With their current funding levels, fixing those items shouldn't be a problem. For comparison, Quay.io was able to do it with just a few engineers. They're just being greedy and overreaching at this point.
- thaJeztah 12y ago
  > For comparison, Quay.io was able to do it with just a few engineers. To me, that actually shows that you don't have to rely on Docker Inc online services and are free to choose other options (that perhaps are better?)

by ABS 12y ago

jbeda 12y ago

The advisory board is just that -- advisory. It has absolutely no teeth. The open source project is 100% owned by Docker, Inc. Solomon believes strongly in a "firewall" between OSS Docker and Docker, Inc -- but it breaks down in various places where it comes to any online service. Examples: * The docker hub gets special privileges in the image namespace. It isn't built on DNS but instead rooted in a namespace owned by Docker, Inc. * The newly announced swarm depends on a discovery endpoint that (as far as I've seen) is closed source and undocumented. I'd love to see the online parts of the OSS docker project have the same "firewall" as Solomon believe he holds for the OSS components.

jbeda 12y ago
Update: the discovery endpoint is pretty simple and now documented: https://github.com/docker/swarm/blob/master/discovery/README.md https://github.com/docker/swarm/blob/master/discovery/README...

23david 12y ago

With their (current) control of the main docker index and namespace, they could have stuck with a simple GitHub model (pay for private indexes) and would have been fine. With the community goodwill that they had, it would have been impossible to compete with them. The reason more people aren't paying for private indexes at this point is because the service is still slow and unreliable, and the UI needs serious work. With their current funding levels, fixing those items shouldn't be a problem. For comparison, Quay.io was able to do it with just a few engineers. They're just being greedy and overreaching at this point.

thaJeztah 12y ago
> For comparison, Quay.io was able to do it with just a few engineers. To me, that actually shows that you don't have to rely on Docker Inc online services and are free to choose other options (that perhaps are better?)