4 ms·

I keep hearing people ask "why won't they just get the core tech right instead of adding all these tangentially related features?". If Docker was just an open

by ef4 12y ago

I keep hearing people ask "why won't they just get the core tech right instead of adding all these tangentially related features?". If Docker was just an open source project, it could focus on getting the core tech right. But Docker is also a startup, and the startup can't stay differentiated unless they keep adding bells & whistles, all of which stay tightly integrated. See also "Why there is no Rails Inc" (http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/posts/6-why-theres-no-rails-inc http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/posts/6-why-theres-no-rai...)

23david 12y ago
The business model seemed clearer before with the commercialized dockerhub. What is the business model with all these new features? Seems to me that they'll either license tech to enable enterprises to build their own docker platforms, or offer their own hosted platform... dotcloud 2.0
- ABS 12y ago
  pretty clear in Docker Inc CEO words here: https://gigaom.com/2014/12/20/on-docker-coreos-open-source-and-virtualization/ https://gigaom.com/2014/12/20/on-docker-coreos-open-source-a... “The closest analogy I guess I can give you is, for people who think of Docker and containers as a new form of virtualization, so [with] open source we gave away ESX and what we are selling is something akin to vCenter or vSphere.”
  - tuffle 12y ago
    Which, if you put the pieces together, clarifies that the purpose of new Docker features is to lasso in fragmentation and make sure you're going to buy their vCenter/vSphere rather than any alternative. This also clarifies why things like Rocket are the biggest existential threat facing Docker Inc., and why the mud is being slung.
    - ABS 12y ago
      well, those are two different things, aren't they? the direction is pretty clear. On everything else I'm on the fence but so far the 'batteries included, but swappable' motto has been respected: everything new they have done/announced lately is not in Docker core but rather an external project (think: Swarm, Machine, Compose) that uses the public APIs
- shykes 12y ago
  The business model is the same. We are selling cloud services via Docker Hub, in addition to training and support. All the new features are pure open design, they only exist because users are asking for them and people are sending patches.
lclarkmichalek 12y ago
It'd be nice if they said that then. Shit like https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/539527695999049728 https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/539527695999049728 make me wonder just how out of touch the docker folk are.
- tuffle 12y ago
  That one seemed pretty ridiculous to me as well. If your project's direction is constant but your user's understanding is changing, then either you're failing to communicate or (worse) your product is actively forsaking its users.
tinco 12y ago
Let's be real here. If Docker was 'just' an open source project, it would move at 50% of the pace and security issues like this would still not be solved. It's crazy to assume that if it were an open source project it would somehow get the core right faster or not expand on its ambitions. If it were just an open source project, it could focus on nothing, because Solomon would be working on something else that would actually pay his bills. It's just a young project with a huge interaction surface, they're trying to please a lot of people in a very small amount of time. No reason to panic, just wait for it to get finished. Also, Docker is an extracted product just like Rails is, and it's not really a framework so I don't think DHH's argument really applies here.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Regardless of the development model, the correct ordering of implementing a feature like signature verification remains the same. 1. Write code to verify signatures. 2. Write code to print "The image you are pulling has been verified."
  - tinco 12y ago
    I wouldn't disagree, obviously someone messed up here. The discussion is more about that some people believe that the fact that his bug is not being solved is a sign that the Docker team lacks focus.
- tuffle 12y ago
  > Let's be real here. If Docker was 'just' an open source project, it would move at 50% of the pace and security issues like this would still not be solved. That's wild speculation, and the elephant in the room (Linux), while a different beast, is a pretty strong counterexample for how being 'just' open source oesn't doom you to being slow or insecure. > It's crazy to assume that if it were an open source project it would somehow get the core right faster or not expand on its ambitions. I don't think it's crazy at all. A (say, community funded) purely open source project has no distractions and has nothing to do but to get the core right. It also has no incentive or reason to expand its ambitions.
oscargrouch 12y ago
I think a good governance model comes from Mozilla; where you have a Org with the open source core binded to it, which owns a Corp that are free to do some monetization efforts to help the Org to be financially healthy and keep moving. The core managed at the Org will have less marketing bubble-words, lies and hype, so we keep trusting their goals and mission, while the corp can do whatever they want to achieve their distinct goals.

by ef4 12y ago

23david 12y ago

The business model seemed clearer before with the commercialized dockerhub. What is the business model with all these new features? Seems to me that they'll either license tech to enable enterprises to build their own docker platforms, or offer their own hosted platform... dotcloud 2.0

ABS 12y ago
pretty clear in Docker Inc CEO words here: https://gigaom.com/2014/12/20/on-docker-coreos-open-source-and-virtualization/ https://gigaom.com/2014/12/20/on-docker-coreos-open-source-a... “The closest analogy I guess I can give you is, for people who think of Docker and containers as a new form of virtualization, so [with] open source we gave away ESX and what we are selling is something akin to vCenter or vSphere.”
- tuffle 12y ago
  Which, if you put the pieces together, clarifies that the purpose of new Docker features is to lasso in fragmentation and make sure you're going to buy their vCenter/vSphere rather than any alternative. This also clarifies why things like Rocket are the biggest existential threat facing Docker Inc., and why the mud is being slung.
  - ABS 12y ago
    well, those are two different things, aren't they? the direction is pretty clear. On everything else I'm on the fence but so far the 'batteries included, but swappable' motto has been respected: everything new they have done/announced lately is not in Docker core but rather an external project (think: Swarm, Machine, Compose) that uses the public APIs
shykes 12y ago
The business model is the same. We are selling cloud services via Docker Hub, in addition to training and support. All the new features are pure open design, they only exist because users are asking for them and people are sending patches.

lclarkmichalek 12y ago

It'd be nice if they said that then. Shit like https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/539527695999049728 https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/539527695999049728 make me wonder just how out of touch the docker folk are.

tuffle 12y ago
That one seemed pretty ridiculous to me as well. If your project's direction is constant but your user's understanding is changing, then either you're failing to communicate or (worse) your product is actively forsaking its users.

tinco 12y ago

Let's be real here. If Docker was 'just' an open source project, it would move at 50% of the pace and security issues like this would still not be solved. It's crazy to assume that if it were an open source project it would somehow get the core right faster or not expand on its ambitions. If it were just an open source project, it could focus on nothing, because Solomon would be working on something else that would actually pay his bills. It's just a young project with a huge interaction surface, they're trying to please a lot of people in a very small amount of time. No reason to panic, just wait for it to get finished. Also, Docker is an extracted product just like Rails is, and it's not really a framework so I don't think DHH's argument really applies here.

tedunangst 12y ago
Regardless of the development model, the correct ordering of implementing a feature like signature verification remains the same. 1. Write code to verify signatures. 2. Write code to print "The image you are pulling has been verified."
- tinco 12y ago
  I wouldn't disagree, obviously someone messed up here. The discussion is more about that some people believe that the fact that his bug is not being solved is a sign that the Docker team lacks focus.
tuffle 12y ago
> Let's be real here. If Docker was 'just' an open source project, it would move at 50% of the pace and security issues like this would still not be solved. That's wild speculation, and the elephant in the room (Linux), while a different beast, is a pretty strong counterexample for how being 'just' open source oesn't doom you to being slow or insecure. > It's crazy to assume that if it were an open source project it would somehow get the core right faster or not expand on its ambitions. I don't think it's crazy at all. A (say, community funded) purely open source project has no distractions and has nothing to do but to get the core right. It also has no incentive or reason to expand its ambitions.

oscargrouch 12y ago

I think a good governance model comes from Mozilla; where you have a Org with the open source core binded to it, which owns a Corp that are free to do some monetization efforts to help the Org to be financially healthy and keep moving. The core managed at the Org will have less marketing bubble-words, lies and hype, so we keep trusting their goals and mission, while the corp can do whatever they want to achieve their distinct goals.