Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Docker Move To a Non-Profit Foundation?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the ask-a-silly-question dept.

darthcamaro writes "Docker has become the new hotness in virtualization technology — but it is still a project that is led by the backing of a single vendor — Docker Inc. Is that a problem? Should there be an open-source Foundation to manage the governance and operation of the Docker project? In a video interview — Docker founder and Benevolent Dictator for Life Solomon Hykes says — No."

2 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. No one cares enough to build a competitor. by visualight · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hype Shmype...

    LXC is the core technology, and the part that's actually revolutionary (for linux). Docker is a cool, well thought out, popular, easy-to-use (etc. ad nauseum) front end to LXC. Yes, I know there some interesting features, but I remain unimpressed. It's still a FRONT END to containers. Honestly I don't know why there aren't several competing front-ends like what happened with cd burning software. Maybe because the people competent to make one just don't care -they are still using LXC directly. It -is- drop dead simple.

    I know I for one don't want application containers anyway, what's it save me a few hundred MB of disk space? Whatever, I'm still using LXC extensively every day, and I still haven't gone past the front page of Dockers website.

    --
    Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    1. Re:No one cares enough to build a competitor. by liquidweaver · · Score: 4, Informative

      Docker does not use LXC anymore by default, fwiw.

      --
      mov ah, 4ch
      int 21h