I hate that this has become an acceptable way to list prices. It's not $24 per month, it's $288 per year! "Per month" implies the customer can pay that price every month, and also stop paying on any given month.
In other news, Docker Business is going to cost 3.3¢ per user per hour. Except you're required to pay for the hours you're asleep, because the service is offered "on an annual basis".
> The list price of the Docker Team subscription will go up by $2 monthly / $24 annually, to $11 per user per month or $108 per user per year. (Annual subscribers will continue to save $24 yearly per user.)
> The list price of the Docker Business subscription will go up by $36, to $288 per user per year.
Note that Docker's pricing page also emphasizes the per-month cost of their annual plans, so this isn't some change they made for the blog post.
[0] https://sso.tax/
I really don't get at whom this SSO-tax hate is directed at?
The SSO Wall of Shame
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31175300
(106 points, 41 comments)
As it stands Docker seems to have burnt a lot of open source good will, and now people are left choosing between a failed unicorn desperate to monetize or a Red Hat knockoff designed to get you into RHEL. Docker is such a huge ecosystem of tools rolled into one that it's bound to live on forever, but the magic is gone.
There are other alternatives, like Amazon's Firecracker
We want more money, so we're charging more money.
The dust is settling and people are starting to realize that Kubernetes is too complex for a lot of cases. This is where things like acorn.io try to live, but this all feels like trying to get back to the same experience Swarm had.
150 users * 12 months * $7/month = $12,600
150 users * 12 months * $24/month = $43,000
Is that right? There are customers who will see their bills more than 3x?
I think this will just lead to more companies switching to alternatives like Podman Desktop or Rancher Desktop.
But to make us feel better, they're offering a 30% discount (for this initial year) to the affected companies.
This is insane, I don't expect we'll renew out subscription next year. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...
[0] https://github.com/abiosoft/colima/
[1] https://www.arthurkoziel.com/replacing-docker-desktop-for-ma...
At this point, even not signing into Docker Hub is perfectly passable, because none of my CI servers ever hit the rate limits, since Nexus can act as a caching proxy, or I can just put my own images in it. It surprises me that this isn't the de-facto way of doing things, since currently it seems like Docker Hub has to deal with a needlessly large amount of network traffic and also countless dead/abandoned images stored in it (and thus, wasted $$$).
I also use a pretty simple setup of Gitea and Drone CI for building my images from a Git repo, which works rather nicely, but perhaps that's besides the point (though you can read more about it on my blog). Of course, I won't say that building most/all of your own container images is necessarily something that you should always do.
That said, personally, I decided to focus on Ubuntu as a common base image for my own needs and install software that I need (Node, Python, JDK, .NET, Ruby and so on) inside of it through apt, as well as install updates during build time. This lead to my own container images with common tools across the board, common shared layers (e.g. fewer layers to pull if a similar image is already on the server/locally), albeit with fewer space optimizations and some caveats, about which you can read in another article of mine: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/using-ubuntu-as-the-base-fo...
Overall, it's been a pretty reasonable experience, though I also understand why folks whose time is 10x more valuable than mine might prefer to throw money at someone, or go for images that have a bit more vendor dark magic in them (e.g. installing JDK through apt vs doing so in alternative ways that save on space).
As for Docker Desktop, if you want something like it, Rancher Desktop aims to be a passable alternative, though with a slightly different focus: https://rancherdesktop.io/
Personally, I don't think that they'll quite succeed anytime soon, because they have a long road ahead of them, much like Podman did (and still has, for some workloads), but it's definitely a promising alternative, given what else the corporation behind it has been capable of (Rancher, RKE and K3s come to mind).
I'd say that it's good for some scenarios.
It's not an entirely complete Docker alternative, there still being various inconsistencies, especially when there are projects like Docker Compose (which has Podman Compose under development) and even Docker Swarm (for which there is no direct alternative), or when something like Nomad support for Podman is still relatively new: https://developer.hashicorp.com/nomad/plugins/drivers/podman
Even then, what functionality you expect will differ for various folks, so it's going to be an instance: "But it works on my servers (for my workload and my deployments), therefore it's stable!"
Personally, I tolerate the worse architecture of Docker, just because it's widespread, reasonably stable (CLI/API wise) and I can use the same setup for both building and running containers (and even lightweight orchestration). Others might disagree, but at the end of the day use whatever works for you.
Edit: edited the post to clear up the confusion, mistakenly compared Podman with containerd, this probably threw me off: https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/kubernetes-workloads-podman-... and https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/compose-kubernetes-podman (it's still not an equivalent to containerd, simply can run workloads described in Kubernetes YAML)
That said, you could probably check out Podman Desktop as well, if interested: https://podman-desktop.io/
In general, though, I have to agree it's a nice alternative. In fact, I think it's already a better alternative for developer workstations. Getting it installed on my Windows box was just one winget command, then I was able to start the WSL host instance and get going with containers from the command line straight away. It didn't install any heavyweight UI front end, it doesn't automagically start running a bunch of services when you boot, there's no nag screens to log in or register or update, you just type some stuff on the command line and off you go. And it makes me happy that even when you SSH in to the WSL instance there's still no daemon running, you're logged in as a normal user and don't need root. It just feels like a much cleaner and more modern approach to containerizing stuff for developers.
podman/skopeo/buildah exist free of charge and run containers rootlessly. theres even a podman-compose tool to migrate from existing compose orchestration.
what does a docker subscription get you? the online service? why is this better than just a $250 vps with 12 cores, 48g of ram, and a TB of storage at some place like Ramnode or Vultr?
This is inflation: price increase while still getting the same.
