Hacker News Reader

Comment by mankash666 | Hacker News Reader

Dead? Really?

TLDR - author disapproves of Docker's management & monetization strategy. However, offers no evidence for a "dying" docker. ClickBait.

View on HN

The author offers some reasonably strong evidence to discuss:

    1) rapid adoption of Kubernetes
    2) shiftless response strategy
    3) aspects of the response strategy that imply internal *recognition* the company won't last
    4) changes to organizational structure / personnel

(I suspect, as other commenters have pointed out, that you are conflating Docker with LXC. This is understandable! Docker-the-company was/is very good with branding!)

Mobile friendly list:

1) rapid adoption of Kubernetes

2) shiftless response strategy

3) aspects of the response strategy that imply internal recognition the company won't last

4) changes to organizational structure / personnel

(Don't use code formatting for lists, use a blank line between each item.)

Seriously. At the least, re-title to "Docker, Inc." because the technology is FAR from dead.

The technology is not "docker" but containerisation.

No, technology is "docker." Containerisation is a family of technologies, but things like runc or - especially - LXC are quite different.

Thank you, I didn't realize LXC wasn't the only interface to cgroups used by Docker. TIL.

And projects like rkt don't exist in your world?

while it's been a while since my last brush with kubernetes, didn't they use kubectl?

So yeah... it's containerisation, not docker.

Rkt is functionally different enough from Docker to be called a different tech, and Kubernetes is, like, a totally different category. Are you also calling bicycles, cars and motorbikes the same technology, because they all use the technology called "wheel" somewhere?

isn't that the point? Docker is just the company now, because docker spun out their technology into moby. there's still a binary on my computer called docker, but it seems that docker, inc wishes that weren't so.

The argument is Docker is the company, and that company is in the best case going to be acquired (go away gracefully) or melt away. The technology is immortalized in Moby.

The article doesn't make a concluding prognostication about Moby vis-à-vis Kubernetes but very clearly thinks the momentum is behind Kubernetes because of the incoherent strategy behind Moby (other than as a means to throw the technology a life line beyond the fate of Docker).

Typical for HN, the article got hidden. It's well known YC alumni have some additional HN mod permissions and Docker is YC S10 (Summer 2010 batch of YCombinator).

This comment was killed because the commenter is banned for serial abuse of HN. I'm going to unkill it because I don't like to leave smears unreplied to.

Moderators didn't touch this article or affect it in any way; users flagged it.

YC alumni do not have HN mod permissions or any ability to demote articles beyond the flagging ability all users get (once their karma passes 30).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com