Changes to Docker Hub Autobuilds
docker.com
docker.com
It is a shame since I rooted hard for them in the early days.
Lots of CLI commands from 5+ years ago still work today and the upgrade story with Docker Compose has been gradual, painless and most importantly pressure-less for having to upgrade.
There was an arms race between them and the community to lead the story on new functionality. For example flannel came out first before docker acquihired SocketPlane for networking, while Calico was also in the works.
There was pressure from the community for a stable plugin API to allow for external contribution, but I imagine that it was ultimately against their best interest
I remember the early days when Docker had just released, all devs were super excited but nobody had run containers “in production”. AFAIK I believe it was mesos that was used widely for orchestrating containers in production. Docker swarm/compose just took too long to get there and k8s just rapidly took over and became the standard.
All along it has always just felt way too imperative. It was too much of a sense that you were issuing commands at a system rather than declaring a desired end state. Kubernetes got this right from the get-go.
In the end, the community was so vocal about Docker being supported in Mesos that it happened, but the end result was not stellar by all accounts (and a bit of a nightmare to deal with on the framework side to boot).
I'm not privy to what was going at the time since I was just part of the larger Mesos community, but looking back, can't help but wonder what would have happened if they collaborated instead.
I'm also trying to learn Docker Swarm mode and both the community and documentation are not as nearly comprehensive as Kubernetes'. And Docker's official documentation and tutorial has me provisioning 3 nodes on a cloud provider instead of just booting up a swarm on my local machine.
And then I see any # of combinations of Docker Swarm with tools like Terraform or Pulumi. It's just all so overwhelming.
I think I'm going to keep banging my head with Kube and its super verbose manifests until I finally get it.
Actually you don't even need a cluster of machines. While Swarm can easily scale out, you can get started with a single machine and figure out the clustering later. Even on a single machine there are benefits of using Swarm over plain Docker (Compose): stacks, secrets, advanced networking. So you can test it out there and add more machines as you need it.
One thing I'd suggest is to first get familiar with Docker itself, since Swarm simply builds on these concepts and adds orchestration. Use `docker run`, understand volumes, images, permissions, user namespaces, cgroups, etc. Then move on to Docker Compose and get familiar with the configuration, services, etc. And then finally pick up Swarm, which even uses the same Docker Compose configuration file (with slight variations), so it should be fairly straightforward at that point.
Though honestly, learning Swarm in 2021 might not be a good investment, since Kubernetes is clearly the market leader, and I wouldn't be surprised to read a sunset notice about it, even though Docker Inc. is still supporting it. So you're probably making a good decision to stick with k8s.
Good luck!
EDIT: typo
Not heard it blamed for using up hard drives before.
More like Proof of SSD-shredding.
> Most new crypto's use proof of stake
What (of any substantial volume) uses proof of stake at the moment? That's Ethereum's path, but it's not there yet.
Regarding hard drives, I think it's "Chia" that just purposely uses an insane amount of disk space; "proof of space": https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/26/new-crypt...
Those are still a cause for chip shortages as crypto customers bid themselves to the front of the line at TSMC:
"Chip manufacturing is already under huge pressure to meet demand, and TSMC is facing a serious water shortage in Taiwan on top of that. Bitmain's order only adds to the pressure, but TSMC clearly wouldn't agree to production if it didn't think it had the spare capacity. Anyone attempting to place new chip orders in the future may end up with a different outcome, though."
https://www.pcmag.com/news/cryptocurrency-miners-are-getting...
Who is denying it? Who is "we"?
TBH I'm surprised that they managed to keep this going as long as they have. Giving away free compute is a tricky thing to make financially viable.
If everyone and everything went paid-only, you'd see a lot less open source software get made. I may be ready to sink a bunch of time into that sorely-missing piece of software I know how to write, but I wouldn't be willing to throw a bunch of money in as well, and I'm sure lots of others would draw a line there.
Same thing with open-sourcing things created at work; it's a hard sell already, but with an ongoing financial commitment, not going to happen. So personally I'm very happy that lots companies still support this sort of thing with free services, and I really hope this kind of crypto cancer won't kill all of them eventually.
For example, I maintain a Docker image that builds statically-linked Rust binaries for Linux. It includes static versions of several C dependencies. It's useful mostly because setting up cross-compilation is really tricky and the details change occasionally.
I've been keeping it up to date for many years, and it has about 750k downloads (which is pretty decent for a compile-time-only Rust image). I don't mind maintaining it as a volunteer service for people who use it. But there's a good chance that I'll simply retire it, and that any paying Docker customers will need to figure out how to cross-compile weird C libraries on their own.
I'm not complaining. Docker owes me nothing, and I can just build images for my own use.
Should we look into implementing our own registry with AWS ECR or similar?
>Yes! We offer unlimited storage and serving of public repositories.
[0]: https://quay.io/
I wish the company could eventually found a way to make more money. Kubernetes too heavy to run, while Docker Swarm is rather reasonable. I guess there is a market gap?(???)
Most people I know of treats Docker.com as some kind of infrastructural service, it's like GitHub/GitHub Action+a Package Manager (Registry). For those who use these kind of service, they're expecting some kind of advanced (feature rich) free package for individuals, and a more advanced version for people who makes money out of the image/product they uploaded.
So, I think the nature of the service environment basically determined that most people who use Docker Cloud will end up be a free tier users. I guess this is something needs to be cracked by Docker Inc.
For me, it is part of what makes some of these technologies leaders of what they do. If Node.js has NPM; Rust has Crates.io; and Debian has their repos, why wouldn't Docker have DockerHub? From my POV of 100% user of these technologies, it just seems natural (or at least that's just what they have made us to expect).
Actually what doesn't seem natural is if NPM suddenly deleted old package versions just mere months after they didn't get any download. I know we're talking about containers, which take more disk space than a NPM package... but still, that policy change from Docker Hub felt odd. Now we have to worry about regularly refresh the containers we care about.
(regarding the mantra "you should rebuild them anyway", well, when you want to reproduce a bug, you don't need to rebuild old packages in other repositories, right?)
Every other registry I've tried works better.
Hashicorp Nomad is an open-source option.
I'm thinking of behavior analysis, such as the one some network firewalls do... not sure if that's even feasible at the process level, though.
The question is whether or not it's worth the effort (for Dockerhub). If they were leading in their space, and had a successful business, then maybe, but in the current situation it would be a large investment in providing something for free.
Remember that this change only applies to the free plans, not to anyone paying.
I'd rather docker spend engineering time on improving their paid service to legitimate customers.
Then the community asked for a feature, the company implemented it at a price point.
The users had a choice, so the company took it away.
The users wanted their choice back, so the company held it at ransom.