Agreed. Forget usage leaks, Docker for Mac doesn't even work on my system, and five days later after reporting it, nobody cares. It used to work, many versions ago, but they've somehow broken it entirely between redesigning the UI 2-3 times and switching from VirtualBox (which worked) to OSX Virtualization (which so far doesn't). See https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/984

In addition, they don't seem to care that the whole thing is useless in China - https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/28791 - also after emailing, no response.

I have contributed to Docker since very early days but am frankly not using it now because the project has for all intents and purposes entered a toxic-to-the-community stage where hype and marketing exceed capacity to resolve issues, total fails are occurring for me on all platforms, and AFAIK nobody in their over-funded San Franciscan office bubble seems to care. It's a typically arrogant startup: not listening to users, heading for a fall.

It's like they've decided to re-invent downloads (badly), re-invent cross-platform hypervisors (badly), re-invent orchestration (badly), re-invent storage (badly) and roll it all up in branded glue. I can't help but wonder if an approach with broader applicability and longevity would segregate the OS (anything container or VM-like at any layer, from Erlang to BSD jails to diskless clusters), and environment paradigm (container-based, paravirtualization-based, bare metal) from the workload and truly enable infrastructure agnoticism by removing the dependency on a single shifting-sands component, and allowing people to A/B test identical workloads on disparate paradigm infrastructures. I tried a few years ago, it worked: http://stani.sh/walter/cims