Would it kill companies to be honest and upfront about these sorts of issues? I feel like "Hey, we're unable to pay our bills unless we can better monetize our product" comes across a lot more honest and trust-worthy than this "We're improving user experience! Trust us!" pride-and-accomplishment nonsense that everyone keeps regurgitating. We're not preschoolers, the Internet can spot marketing slogans a mile away.
Docker Hub[1] is also blatantly in breach of the GDPR. Wording on the pop-up:<p>> We and our advertising partners use cookies on this site and around the web to improve your website experience and provide you with personalised advertising from this site and other advertisers in AdRoll's network. By clicking "allow" or navigating this site, you accept the placement and use of these cookies for these purposes.<p>It’s not a modal, but supposedly ignoring it opts you into the tracking, with the only choices being “Allow” or “Learn More” and the [x] button also being labelled “Allow”.<p>IANAL, but it’s not informed individualised consent if there’s literally no opt-out, and there’s not a lawful basis unless advertising-cookies are suddenly the enabling technology behind downloadable containers.<p>I’d report them to the Information Commissioner‘s Office myself if I didn’t think they were about to fold anyway, after their piss-poor sunsetting of Docker Cloud and painting a target on their own back for a few adbucks.<p>[1]: <a href="https://hub.docker.com/" rel="nofollow">https://hub.docker.com/</a>
Docker is such a mess.<p>As a tool for building containers its cumbersome, has bizarre and frustrating limitations and has issues that haven’t been addressed in years. You can’t use semver for tags, it eats up all your disk space and you have to manually GC it, etc… Multi-build support is basically useless and invariably you end up writing convoluted bash scripts to get the thing to work.<p>Caching is terrible pretty much across the board. How many petabytes of data are wasted every day re-syncing apt-get?<p>As a runtime engine its basically dead for production use. If you ever try to use it you’ll quickly discover that it has tons of problems. It locks up, orphans processes, stops responding to commands, forgets about containers, etc. And its not safe to run arbitrary containers. You’d be surprised by how many companies using Kubernetes gave up using docker a long time ago.<p>Please save yourself a lot of heartache and just use containerd.<p>As a concept, containers never really lived up to their potential. "A Docker container image is a lightweight, standalone, executable package of software that includes everything needed to run an application." As long as that application runs in linux.<p>As a company Docker is a failure. All their cloud stuff is clunky, poorly thought out and at this point largely irrelevent. I'll be surprised if it will last 5 years. Kubernetes won. Those cute, cuddly characters and the Docker name are basically all they have going for them, and all these things, the Moby rename, the requiring login to download, etc... are the death throes of a dying company. Docker is the next jQuery.<p>People don't realize just how easy all this stuff will be to replace. Google already did it. Like 5 times. (gVisor, jib, kaniko, ...) It was probably some intern's side project.<p>Microsoft should just get it over with and acquire the company. It would be the perfect cherry on top to their Github cake.
I get it. I hate login-walls too.<p>The level of toxicity in the github issue's conversation is so astounding that I must say something. People on the internet are people. I hope that we don't talk to people in "real life" the same as we do when we make toxic comments online. Complain, write letters/emails to Docker, make your opinion heard, etc. But remember that you are dealing with a fellow human-being, who has their own life and own emotions. Treat them with the same respect you would like to be shown when people are unhappy with you.<p>The comments in that github issue reflect very poorly on us as a professional community to the point that I'm embarrassed.
It seems like Docker is in a really awkward place as a company. Their strategy was clearly to get everyone on the container hyper train then monetize by selling the production orchestration / runtime. But Kubernetes happened and GCP / AWS have rolled out competition in all the other supporting system needed; container registries, build pipelines, etc. What is the actual pitch for Docker EE now? Their marketing is pushing hard on 'security', but otherwise it seems like they are just selling a pretty UI for K8s. I don't see that being enough to support a company that has taken 250M in funding.
That's what throwaway accounts are for... and this, of course:<p><a href="http://bugmenot.com/view/store.docker.com" rel="nofollow">http://bugmenot.com/view/store.docker.com</a><p>In any case, "to make sure we can improve the Docker for Mac and Windows experience for users moving forward" is yet another example of the official-sounding-yet-bullshit, vague and meandering language that seems to permeate into everything these days. (Is there a specific term for it? "Business-speak" doesn't have enough of a negative connotation for the "We did it this way and you <i>will</i> like it. If you don't, fuck off." that they really want to say.)
Don't worry guys, I created a PR to fix it.<p>This is an open source project so I'm sure this will be priority one as soon as the Docker project admins get online (<a href="https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/pull/7242" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/pull/7242</a>)
This one comment sums up the changes nicely:
<a href="https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/issues/6910#issuecomment-414553120" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/issues/6910#issue...</a>
A download went from 5 steps to 12 steps, to improve the Docker experience?<p>The irony is the resulting statistics might actually say less people had a negative experience with docker, now they dont even download and try it...
It's not a good move, but I don't understand the vitriol expressed on Github, calling the developers jerks etc.<p>Our company has never paid Docker for anything, but we've benefited greatly from having Docker images be the output of our backend build jobs. I never have to dig into classpath errors from conflicting JARs any more, or deal with out of date JDKs living on QA and production machines. I can deploy a dependent service that I know nothing about without digging through code and documentation. Yes it has its issues but the positives far outweigh the negatives.<p>I understand that it's a frustrating move and the wrong path to go to for monetization, but can we also recognize that it's a company has done a lot for the community and is struggling to secure its future, instead of calling them names?
Can anyone post an experience using rkt [0]. I'd love an alternative to using Docker for containers, though I'm not sure how well a community has evolved around rkt.<p>[0] <a href="https://github.com/rkt/rkt" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/rkt/rkt</a>
I can understand why people hate this, but this comment did make me laugh:<p>> Do you want to be Oracle? Because this is how you become Oracle. -1<p>Revenue: "US$39.83 billion (2018)" - I can see a few reasons why they <i>might</i> hah
If you're frustrated with Docker's slow pace of development are are looking for a good alternative, have a look at Singularity containers. They're interoperable with Docker Hub and OCI compatible images, and offer a much better experience for HPC, machine learning and big data environments. Their GPU support is top notch. They don't run on as many platforms as Docker, but are aiming to grow into cross-platform. Sylabs is a small team in Austin, TX that does a lot of the development work, but they are quickly gaining adoption in academia. It's available on Cedar and Graham in Compute Canada (a large supercomputing cluster that serves most of Canada). We use Singularity on all our lab machines as it is much easier for IT admins to manage, and doesn't require sudo access. Their GPU support is top notch.<p><a href="https://www.sylabs.io/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sylabs.io/</a>
Docker is too heavy for golang, which is all I use scaled horizontally anymore. I can easily create a binary for any operating system. With dep (and even more so vgo) reproducible builds just really aren't a problem with golang. But when i've got a virtually unlimited number of green threads I can spin up with goroutines, why do I need to containerize to scale horizontally?
Annoying but not the end of the world IMHO. In any case, I have a dockerhub account so I can publish containers there; so I might as well use it. Similarly I have a Github account and am actually a paying customer as well. The bottom line is I have accounts left right and center for things that I depend on professionally. Some of these I even pay for but most of them I don't pay a penny.<p>This is a closed source product distributed for free. They are well in their rights to charge money for it even. Given that and given how important this product is for my day to day routine (I run lots of docker stuff all the time), and given that docker has been contributing a lot of OSS code in this space, I think this is a relatively small and entirely fair price to pay.<p>I don't agree with the sense of entitlement in this thread. Docker providing a free community edition of a product they've built that allows running docker on top of Mac/Windows is not charity but a means for them to up-sell their commercial solutions. That's the only reason it exists. I'm grateful that it exists and I hope that they can make this work so I can continue to depend on this.<p>An alternative is getting a linux laptop and running pure open source versions of whatever containerization you require.
I also can't delete my account myself after having created it. I believe the best way to operate is to make something as easy to delete as it was to create...
Docker is my perfect example of a OSS being poisoned by excessive money.<p>OSS needs money to survive but too much of it (a too heavy burden to turn a profit) can poison it leading to significant issues being ignored because either the paying customers are not affected or because the issue is an integral part of the business model.<p>I wished someone were able to fork docker and strip off all of the extra fluff (mainly service stuff) but I don't think anyone without deep pockets can support such massively complex software.
It is very sad to see the official reasoning to be "to make sure we can improve the Docker for Mac and Windows experience for users moving forward".<p>This is a blatant politician-talk-tier lie.
Can anyone who works inside PR for software-developer facing companies like Docker explain how a decision like this could make it past vetting?<p>Any software developer (who isn't drunk on the kool aid?) could tell you that this would result in loss of good will.
Ubuntu for raspberry pi requires a ubuntu login continue installing it, after formatting and setting the network up. It won't let you boot into a working setup until you create account on their website. Kind of hard if you don't have access to any other device.
Buildah seems to be becoming a replacement for Docker on the desktop:<p><a href="https://github.com/projectatomic/buildah" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/projectatomic/buildah</a><p>Pure CLI tool that does not run a daemon, from Red Hat, recently hit version 1. Unfortunately, I don't think that macOS is supported yet.
This is pretty much a reality check. Like any other business , Open Source needs funding.<p>It's well know Docker is far from being profitable. This is somewhat represents how ultimately money always win on open source one way or another.
I wonder how requiring login to download helps a company in general? Docker says "improve experience for users" but is collecting download counts for each accounts important?
<p><pre><code> we've made this change to make sure we can improve the Docker for Mac and Windows experience for users moving forward
</code></pre>
The login-wall is not a great start :/
Hi I head up Docker Developer Relations. There are plenty of ways to get Docker CE without logging Docker Store. See my comment on GitHub for more details.<p><a href="https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/issues/6910#issuecomment-414758273" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/issues/6910#issue...</a>
It's in Docker's interest to capture as much value as they can from their products, their calculus is changing. It's their decision to make, however passing it off as in the best interest of users is a bit of a whopper and not the best way to communicate it. I don't think entitlement to other people's work is the best response though.
Still available through their doco
<a href="https://docs.docker.com/v17.12/docker-for-mac/install/" rel="nofollow">https://docs.docker.com/v17.12/docker-for-mac/install/</a>
Kubernetes will eventually just kill docker. It's the best way to run docker in the cloud right now and keeps getting better. Plus it abstracts docker with pods. Better support for OCI/Rkt and docker will just die.
This is probably the straw that broke the camel's back for Docker. Not that anyone expected it to stick around for that long anyway, they've had a terrible history of failure and poor design choices.
Well, I suppose it is time to realise that Docker has perhaps become a bit too dominant and that the ecosystems of which it is a part, might benefit from there being more alternatives.
"Uhuh. You mean, force people to login with an email so we can target them with an ad campaign so we make money??"<p>Good luck with I'm behind 1000 spam filters.
guix environment --container [ list of packages ] -- command<p>I haven't looked back since they added that in the last version. Configurable network namespace sharing or isolation, configurable fs namespace sharing or isolation, configurable environment variables within the container, and the option to "pack" the entire thing as a tar.gz to deploy.
Correct me if I am wrong, but all components of Docker CE are open source and one could therefore still download and build the binaries themselves, right?<p>I really don't see the issue of requiring hoops to get precompiled binaries as long as there is a way to get and build the binaries yourself.
You can download it here --> <a href="https://docs.docker.com/v17.09/docker-for-windows/install/#download-docker-for-windows" rel="nofollow">https://docs.docker.com/v17.09/docker-for-windows/install/#d...</a>
Quite hilarious that this guy's motto is "I help high-tech companies cross the chasm by making their products easier to use and learn"<p><a href="http://www.joaofn.com/about/" rel="nofollow">http://www.joaofn.com/about/</a><p>He is doing quite the opposite
I noticed this today! Thankfully I was able to dig up their instructions for Ubuntu installation which just depend on apt, and they still worked fine. You can practically hear the Docker devs fighting with PMs/business guys about this one.
> ...we've made this change to make sure we can improve the Docker for Mac and Windows experience for users moving forward.<p>Such obvious run-of-the-mill marketing BS. Moving forward, I'll give Docker a wide berth.
If you don't want to use your email to download docker, use bugmenot:<p><a href="http://bugmenot.com/view/store.docker.com" rel="nofollow">http://bugmenot.com/view/store.docker.com</a>
There's an alternative, without the docker overhead, <a href="https://coreos.com/rkt/" rel="nofollow">https://coreos.com/rkt/</a>
<a href="https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/" rel="nofollow">https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/</a> <--- you're welcome.
if u don't need some producer who obviously prefers money over user happiness or quality. just use true open source things. ultimatley that's the attitude that leads to them seling your information or maybe worse...(wether they do it NOW or not is irrelevant) docker is your infra... nice spot for backdoor once it closes itself further from public..., wether they are doing it NOW or not, i'd look for another road to this rome you seek
I have never installed Docker through any route other than a Linux distribution's package manager. Why would anyone use the download in the first place?
I'm very curious how this develops. It was already a bit strange to notice that one of the several container technologies available got significantly more visibility thanks to a smart marketing team and targeting Mac and Windows users. Personally, I'm using LXC and related technologies and see no benefit in switching to Docker whatsoever. Eventually most people run their containers on Linux anyway, and the LXC's way of doing things seems very native and natural in this environment.
I'm really sorry for the proprietary OS users, that's really a shame that they have to give their email to docker inc. now, if they haven't already (docker hub anyone ?), everytime they install docker on a machine (once per install ?), all this crying its makes mes wanna cry :'(
So you have to log in to Docker Store on Windows and on Mac. I sort of get the frustration. Using one of these systems for development is a painful experience on its own, no need to make it more miserable.
Not sure what the issue is here.<p>You can download Docker from many other sources without a login. And they are only putting the Docker Community Edition behind the email paywall as pretty much every open source/freemium company does these days.
This issue was opened in the docs repo and it was closed in that context, which was correct (the docs do not need to change as for now).<p>The docs do not dictate how you download Docker and joaofnfernandes is only responsible for the docs as far as I can tell.
We decided to spend a minute of your time for registration to improve your experience (and another minute that it will take to unsubscribe from spam later).<p>But I think it's only fair. Those developers who dislike this probably do the same to their users.
Bit of a cliché, but nothing is free. You are choosing to use technology provided by a for-profit company. Community Edition does not mean it's owned by the community. It's absolutely irritating to have to create an account and login when you just want to try something, but if you're invested in a technology and the company that provides it (at no direct monetary cost to you), I don't think it's worth getting stroppy about. Plenty of other more sinister and cynical things happening in tech right now to get riled about
Good. Maybe we can get back to writing software, rather than spending our time on pointless deployment scripting, tools, and reiventing wheels. Or have developers interested in containers spend their efforts on standardized rather than Linux-only solutions. Docker has IMHO never made any sense for the use cases people seem to have in mind, as it really doesn't isolate you from anything (neither from the host O/S nor Docker itself). Docker, Inc. touting the security aspect doesn't hold merit given Docker must be run as root, and containers can't use host system permissions etc.
I understand the rationale for filing this issue, although I personally disagree with it... Docker for Mac is great freeware, and I don’t mind logging into Steam and Mac Store for my other apps, so I don’t have an issue with doing the same with Docker. But for someone who greatly cares about not having to give their email, I can see how it can be annoying to see the policy change after they started using the software...<p>Either way... Holy shit is that github thread full of negativity and entitlement! Pretty shocking. Even if you’re unhappy with something, that’s no way to treat a team that is giving you a tool for free!