←back to thread

1101 points codesmash | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.345s | source
Show context
t43562 ◴[] No.45137756[source]
To provide 1 contrary opinion to all the others saying they have a problem:

Podman rocks for me!

I find docker hard to use and full of pitfalls and podman isn't any worse. On the plus side, any company I work for doesn't have to worry about licences. Win win!

replies(7): >>45137807 #>>45137925 #>>45138918 #>>45140013 #>>45141773 #>>45142624 #>>45142950 #
nickjj ◴[] No.45137925[source]
> On the plus side, any company I work for doesn't have to worry about licences. Win win!

Was this a deal breaker for any company?

I ask because the Docker Desktop paid license requirement is quite reasonable. If you have less than 250 employees and make less than $10 million in annual revenue it's free.

If you have a dev team of 10 people and are extremely profitable to where you need licenses you'd end up paying $9 a year per developer for the license. So $90 / year for everyone, but if you have US developers your all-in payroll is probably going to be over $200,000 per developer or roughly $2 million dollars. In that context $90 is practically nothing. A single lunch for the dev team could cost almost double that.

To me that is a bargain, you're getting an officially supported tool that "just works" on all operating systems.

replies(35): >>45137943 #>>45137961 #>>45137966 #>>45138011 #>>45138193 #>>45138456 #>>45138557 #>>45138589 #>>45138645 #>>45138697 #>>45138769 #>>45138780 #>>45138910 #>>45138938 #>>45139051 #>>45139108 #>>45139291 #>>45139346 #>>45139639 #>>45139789 #>>45139934 #>>45140972 #>>45140985 #>>45141222 #>>45141227 #>>45141250 #>>45141737 #>>45142180 #>>45142801 #>>45142963 #>>45143028 #>>45143180 #>>45143185 #>>45144942 #>>45151669 #
akerl_ ◴[] No.45137961[source]
The problem isn’t generally the cost, it’s the complexity.

You end up having to track who has it installed. Hired 5 more people this week? How many of them will want docker desktop? Oh, we’ve maxed the licenses we bought? Time to re-open the procurement process and amend the purchase order.

replies(5): >>45138069 #>>45138398 #>>45138407 #>>45138518 #>>45142035 #
1. almosthere ◴[] No.45138518[source]
Everything is hard in a large company and they have hired teams to manage procurement so this is just you over thinking.
replies(3): >>45138745 #>>45138847 #>>45138870 #
2. akerl_ ◴[] No.45138745[source]
What a strangely hostile reply.
3. malnourish ◴[] No.45138847[source]
How often have you dealt with large org procurement processes? I've spent weeks waiting on the one person needed to approve something that cost less than something I could readily buy on my T&E card.
4. dboreham ◴[] No.45138870[source]
Typically the team they hired is focused on you not procuring things.
replies(1): >>45139072 #
5. akerl_ ◴[] No.45139072[source]
I think a lot of this boils down to Procurement's good outcome generally being quite different than the good outcome for each team that wants a purchase.

To draw a parallel: imagine a large open source project with a large userbase. The users interact with the project and a bunch of them have ideas for how to make it better! So they each cut feature requests against the project. The maintainers look at them. Some of the feature requests they'll work on, some of them they'll take well-formed pull requests. But some they'll say "look, we get that this is helpful for you, but we don't think this aligns with the direction we want the project to go".

A good procurement team realizes that every time the business inks a purchase agreement with a vendor, the company's portfolio has become incrementally more costly. For massive deals, most of that cost is paid in dollars. For cheaper software, the sticker price is low but there's still the cost of having one more plate to juggle for renewals / negotiations / tracking / etc.

So they're incentivized to be polite but firm and push back on whether there's a way to get the outcome in another way.

(this isn't to suggest that all or even most procurement teams are good, but there is a kernel of sanity in the concept even though it's often painful for the person who wants to buy something)