Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I worked with LXC since 2009, then personally built a cloud provider agnostic workflow interface superior in scope to Docker in feature set[1] between about 2013-2014 as a side project to assist with my work (managing multi-DC, multi-jurisdiction, high security and availability infrastructure and CI/CD for a major cryptocurrency exchange). (Unfortunately I was not able to release that code because my employer wanted to keep it closed source, but the documentation[2] and early conception[3] has been online since early days.) I was also an early stage contributor to docker, providing security related issues and resolutions based upon my early LXC experience.

Based upon the above experience, I firmly believe that Docker could be rewritten by a small team of programmers (~1-3) within a few month timeframe.

[1] Docker has grown to add some of this now, but back then had none of it: multiple infrastructure providers (physical bare metal, external cloud providers, own cloud/cluster), normalized CI/CD workflow, pluggable FS layers (eg. use ZFS or LVM2 snapshots instead of AUFS - most development was done on ZFS), inter-service functional dependency, guaranteed-repeatable platform and service package builds (network fetches during package build process are cached)...

[2] http://stani.sh/walter/cims/

[3] http://stani.sh/walter/pfcts/




It effectively has been.

Oracle, Sun, FreeBSD, RunC, OCI

None are _as popular_ as docker. But many offer more features, or a flatly superior product.

Docker _isnt good_. Docker is popular. Actually their constant breaking of compatibility makes me wonder why everyone continues to tolerate it.


Docker _isnt good_. Docker is popular.

Which means a popularity-based valuation is a house of cards.


Maybe. But there's also something to be said for generating popularity and mind share intentionally. It seems Docker has been very good at that part (and pretty good at the technical side too).

Many wonderful, technically-superior-than-alternatives projects languish and die in obscurity, while its inferior counterpart wins the popularity/marketing contest.


The businesses that win in that way (VHS vs beta) do so because there is money flowing.

It is unclear that with docker they really have much income, and enterprise software projects that perhaps make up most of their income are frequently rewritten with new toolsets.

Therefore, it is uncertain there will be commercial traction in 5 years... particularly because docker has (according to this thread) already lost the open source feature set battle (targeting a demographic which, incidentally, tends to shun marketing).

Hence, house of cards.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: