←back to thread

1101 points codesmash | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
weberc2 ◴[] No.45142035{3}[source]
I'm of the opinion that large companies should be paying for the software they use regardless of whether it's open source or not, because software isn't free to develop. So assuming you're paying for the software you use, you still have the problem that you are subject to your internal procurement processes. If your internal procurement processes make it really painful to add a new seat, then maybe the processes need to be reformed. Open source only "fixes" the problem insofar as there's no enforcement mechanism, so it makes it really easy for companies to stiff the open source contributors.
replies(3): >>45142122 #>>45142271 #>>45142500 #
bityard ◴[] No.45142271{4}[source]
"stiff the open source contributors"

I'm not sure you realize that "open source" means anyone anywhere is free to use, modify, and redistribute the software in any way they see fit? Maybe you're thinking of freeware or shareware which often _do_ come with exceptions for commercial use?

But anyway, as an open source contributor, I have never felt I was being "stiffed" just because a company uses some software that I helped write or improve. I contribute back to projects because I find them useful and want to fix the problems that I run into so I don't have to maintain my own local patches, help others avoid the same problems, and because making the software better is how I give back to the open source community.

replies(1): >>45148864 #
pferde ◴[] No.45148864{5}[source]
Several hundreds of Sillicon Valley "techbros" just threw up in their mouths a little. "Doing things without monetizing them? Eww, how pedestrian!"
replies(1): >>45158775 #
1. t43562 ◴[] No.45158775{6}[source]
....and yet those tech bros all use open source software themselves.