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."

10 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. It's a very complex issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I will wait to see what Bennett Haselton has to say about it.

  2. a foundation? surely a product should be first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Foundations are used when an established product has such a broad userbase that representing it well requires an independent group of people.

    A foundation for a thing which is as of now just a tool to assist in using other tools seems overkill. Unless your point is to hype the company.

    I understand that this company just got another round of financing ... (according to wikipedia).

    Perhaps someone out there wants their stock to go up by discussing it.

    Rest assured, this company will fail or succeed on its own and will LIKELY BE REPLACED BY SOMETHING BETTER if the company starts acting like dicks...
    Or if their investors do.

    I hope it annoys you I didn't use the company name once in here.

    See OP.

    M

  3. 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 ZeekWatson · · Score: 2

      LXC is the core technology, and the part that's actually revolutionary (for linux).

      LXC is not really revolutionary, OpenVZ and Linux-VServer provided linux containerization for many many years.

      I expect someone to come along any minute now and say that Docker no longer uses LXC anyway, now it uses libcontainer. This isn't true, libcontainer is just another frontend to LXC, libvirt being the first project to run a LXC without using the LXC userland.

      http://linux-vserver.org/

      http://openvz.org/

    2. Re:No one cares enough to build a competitor. by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      LXC existed for some years so far, and the same for containers and similar technologies in other platforms. What Docker added over lxc is adding the use of an unionfs for reusing/improving containers, a simple way to share them, and a simple but powerful command line utility and api to manage them.

      There is nothing so special in sulphur, charcoal and salt peter, but do the right mix with them and you get something explosive (and used in revolutions, too)

    3. Re:No one cares enough to build a competitor. by csirac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Before docker, as a (not necessarily web) developer I used vagrant to create reproducible environments and build artefacts from a very small set of files. The goal being: I should be able to git clone a very tiny repo tracking a few KiB of scripts and declartiive stuff/config, which - when run - pulls down dependencies, reproduces a build toolchain/environment, performs the build, and delivers substantially identical artefacts regardless of which machine I run it from. I should be able look at an artefact in 2-3 years time, look it up in our version history and reproduce it easily.

      Achieving this isn't so easy. Even if I had been using LXC all along I still wouldn't have had the main thing from Dockerfiles that I enjoy: cached build steps. I've been cornered due to time pressures in the past where I can't afford to tweak everything nicely so I've had to release build artefacts from a process which isn't captured in the automation (i.e. I manually babysat the build to meet a requirement on time). This is because hour-long builds make for maybe 3-4 iterations per day, so you have one thread of work where you're hacking interactively while you wait to see if the automation was able to deliver the result you were up to an hour or two ago. I still have this to an extent with Docker (adjust build step and re-run, or step in interactively to explore what's needed) but because Dockerfile steps are cached these iterations are massively accelerated and there's only a handful of occasions where I had to bypass this process now.

      I can't speak for using Docker to actually containerize running applications (that's not how I use it), but just this narrow usage of Docker has helped my productivity enormously.

    4. 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
  4. Re:So, my product goes viral... by OldSpiceAP · · Score: 2

    Actually, docker is already open source. The question is really whether something that's valueable to the open source community needs to be driven by a single company; it's an interesting question. The product though has always been free.

  5. Re:So, my product goes viral... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Given that it's both free, and free as in Apache 2.0, it's arguably a question that will sort itself out(though this doesn't make discussion and conjecture on the matter illegitimate or anything). Aside from the trademarks, there's nothing stopping anyone from striking out and having their own docker-in-all-but-name. So long as Docker, Inc. appears to be handling the benevolent dictatorship thing competently there isn't much incentive, though, unless you just adore maintaining a fork for the sake of it. If they upset people enough, without actually losing to another technology, we get an x11/Xorg style move; and if something displaces them, they just sink into the murky depths never to be heard from again...

    It doesn't solve any of the annoying questions of making people with disparate objectives and potential personality flaws play nicely with one another; but a liberal software license does lower the stakes: If the controlling entity exerts very substantial power, it really matters how that entity is constituted. If they don't, it just doesn't matter as much because their ability to mal-administer is lower and the potential that everyone will just wander away rather than having to go down with the ship is there.

  6. Let the man make his money by lseltzer · · Score: 2

    If he thinks he can make it successful as a commercial enterprise, why shouldn't he?