←back to thread

The Deletion of Docker.io/Bitnami

(community.broadcom.com)
329 points zdkaster | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.289s | source
Show context
greatgib ◴[] No.45049298[source]
I don't want to discount the work they are doing, and that it has no value, but a little bit shocking that they expect to go all commercial with this, in the Oracle way, while just "packaging" and so relying on open source software that they will not contribute to.

Also, I'm a little bit wondering at how much all of this is really copyrightable in the end. Because if you keep it private I understand, but here it is basically for each package just a few lines, recipes to build the components that they don't own. Like trying to copyright the line "make build".

And it might be each the single and obvious way to package the thing anyway.

And speaking at the built artefacts, usually a binary distribution of third party open source software with common license should preserve the same rights to the user to access the source code, the instructions to build, and the right to redistribute...

replies(2): >>45049473 #>>45049478 #
supriyo-biswas ◴[] No.45049478[source]
What probably carries more value is the helm charts that they provide which are also on their way out.

The images themselves have official replacements (for example, looking at https://hub.docker.com/u/bitnami why wouldn’t I use Node or Postgres images from the official sources instead).

I have no idea how many people actually used their helm charts though.

replies(2): >>45049531 #>>45049943 #
1. asmor ◴[] No.45049531[source]
Some other open source projects have also shipped Bitnami software in their own helm charts, i.e. APISIX's etcd instance is the Bitnami chart pulled in as a dependency.

Not that it ever worked well, we had to scale it to 1 because the quorum would constantly break into unrecoverable states.