Hacker News Reader

So you have a tool that your team use daily, but won’t pay a small license for it? I’m not sure I understand that logic. If the tool you have worked for you when it was free, it still works for you when you pay a small cost per month. Unless the cost is really that huge, I don’t see why that would be a reason to change.

View on HN

I think it is mostly the issue of dealing with byzantine corporate procurement processes. Also, it's really not all the clear what value-add Docker for Desktop is. Essentially it is just doing what you can do using the OSS components (running a Linux VM which runs the docker daemon and mounting a Unix socket on the host machine to talk to it). The only "value add" is a UI app on the host machine which I have never once used personally or witnessed anyone else using.

I certainly don't begrudge Docker for trying to create a sustainable business, but as an "open core" model it's really hard to understand what their proprietary extensions are that people will want to pay for. They took a stab at the container orchestration space with Docker Swarm (which you could definitely imagine having an "enterprise version") but that lost out pretty definitively to Kubernetes. So they're left with Docker Hub? That just doesn't seem like it will really be much of a revenue generator. You're either using whatever cloud container registry is available (ECR, GCR etc) or you're using a more general artifact repository like Artifactory, GitHub which can be a container registry as well as a Maven/NPM/etc artifact repository.

Not only is he opposed to paying a license fee, he will contribute to the development of an entirely new, almost certainly worse, tool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com