←back to thread

We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

(www.linuxserver.io)
128 points darthShadow | 3 comments | 24 Jan 25 11:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.737s | source
Show context
concerndc1tizen ◴[24 Jan 25 12:20 UTC] 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 ◴[24 Jan 25 12:23 UTC] 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 #
concerndc1tizen ◴[24 Jan 25 12:32 UTC] No.42812498[source]▶
And once those services are fully developed, and the market is captured, do they still need to provide free services?

Isn't compatibility issues a major problem for alternative registries?

replies(1): >>42814895 #
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[24 Jan 25 16:47 UTC] No.42814895[source]▶
> Isn't compatibility issues a major problem for alternative registries?

Er, is it? I've used a handful of different registries and never hit anything that even resembled a compatibility problem. Have I just been lucky?

replies(2): >>42817136 #>>42822195 #
1. aspenmayer ◴[24 Jan 25 21:34 UTC] No.42817136[source]▶
One example that springs to mind is Homebrew/MacPorts. I think they install things differently and might not be interoperable?
replies(1): >>42817297 #
2. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[24 Jan 25 21:55 UTC] No.42817297[source]▶
They do things differently, but what does that have to do with docker registries?
replies(1): >>42817336 #
3. aspenmayer ◴[24 Jan 25 22:01 UTC] No.42817336[source]▶
It’s an example of incompatibility in registries generally, which I thought was the nature of your surprise at its existence or occurrence. I’m not aware of any such incompatibilities among Docker registries, but other issues may affect usage such as rate limits. I’m not sure what the person you were responding to had in mind.