←back to thread

128 points darthShadow | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.523s | source
Show context
concerndc1tizen ◴[] No.42812414[source]
If you don't like it, then why don't you use a different provider?

If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff?

Storage, compute, and traffic, isn't free. You've been the beneficiary of charity for years.

Yes, the open source community has relied on this implicit charity as a parasite, by exploiting whatever free services they could. And now we're paying the price, as you say, by having DockerHub as the default provider.

My suggestion is therefore that we need independent solutions, that are fully funded as a charity, and stop relying on freemium services from corporations that fundamentally don't care about the public good.

replies(13): >>42812438 #>>42812465 #>>42812483 #>>42812503 #>>42812530 #>>42812541 #>>42812566 #>>42812595 #>>42812600 #>>42812673 #>>42812938 #>>42814023 #>>42816357 #
sealeck ◴[] No.42812438[source]
This is really a question of framing. The other way you can look at it is: Docker has benefitted from a community adopting its products, and developing software that makes Docker more useful. As someone who sells Docker services, you benefit from a greater market size.

It's like how WordPress have benefitted from people authoring plugins – even though wordpress.org has hosted them for "free", this has been good commercial sense as it allows them to sell more WordPress.com to people.

replies(5): >>42812498 #>>42812534 #>>42812626 #>>42813991 #>>42815002 #
TZubiri ◴[] No.42812534[source]
"Docker has benefitted from a community adopting its products,"

It takes a whole lot of mental gymnastics to argue that a provider of free services is actually the one benefitting from that interaction, and not the other way around.

Go ahead and build your systems on free dependencies like WordPress and Debian, but just get real and don't pretend that you are better than professionals that build business relationships and actually pay for their software dependencies like RHEL and Webflow.

replies(3): >>42812564 #>>42812653 #>>42812809 #
1. sealeck ◴[] No.42812809[source]
Would you say Github benefit from open source developers using it? (And if not, why do you think they provide the service?)

These people are maintaining free Docker images for Docker users to use. They're not charging for this, and Docker benefit massively from these images being available!

replies(1): >>42812936 #
2. TZubiri ◴[] No.42812936[source]
"Would you say Github benefit from open source developers using it? (And if not, why do you think they provide the service?)"

Let's assume it's an equitable exchange.

"These people are maintaining free Docker images for Docker users to use. They're not charging for this, and Docker benefit massively from these images being available!"

Getting into nuance here, I do see the benefit a corp has over hosting source code, training data, reputation, so we see eye to eye there. But I don't see much benefit of hosting container images. Add that to the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude more expensive than hosting code!

What value is there in being a provider of free hosting that is commesurate with being a host of source code?