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."

4 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 liquidweaver · · Score: 4, Informative

      Docker does not use LXC anymore by default, fwiw.

      --
      mov ah, 4ch
      int 21h