re: Docker, rant
I particularly "love" how people write angrily about Docker's changes and then... suggest moving to *another* free service from a for-profit corporation
I can see no problem with this whatsoever
@joepie91 obviously we must put containers on a blockchain /s
@shine This one seemed to be of the IPFS-bro variation
@joepie91 bittorrent web seeds are a thing, the image publisher can maintain an authoritative source while also allowing arbitrary mirrors to share bandwidth
@lunch I am aware. This does not solve the problem occurring here.
@joepie91 sorry but why doesn't it?
@lunch Two reasons:
- The problem here is centralized namespace control, not centralized file serving
- BitTorrent-style P2P systems have an effective availability of 0, and 1 + 0 is still 1; adding unreliable peers does not actually increase the (semi-)guaranteed availability you have
@joepie91 the first two issues go hand in hand, whoever serves files gets to administer namespaces gets to control distribution
as for availability: bittorrent works *really* well for distributing stuff despite not giving any guarantees, if docker-like things had a larger culture of running local mirrors (which wouldn't be hardl I would expect this to be a nonissue and make the burden of publishing popular images marginal, especially if we bring in rss feeds for publishing updates
re: Docker, rant
@joepie91 what has Docker done now?
re: Docker, rant
@freemanovec They're deleting essentially all free organizations (and their images) from the registry in a month or so, unless they pay up
re: Docker, rant
@joepie91 geez.. That should accelerate my switch to quay xD Hecking Docker
re: Docker, rant
@freemanovec @joepie91 Quay is RedHat aka IBM operating on basically the same model, so you can copy paste the above thread in a few years with 's/docker/quay/g'
re: Docker, rant
@rune @pixie.town fair enough, but what are some viable alternatives for a public registry that you don't have to host yourself? GCR? :D
re: Docker, rant
@freemanovec All the registries are probably fine if you pay for them. It's not like Docker is deleting stuff for paying customers.
If you don't want to pay for them you'll have to host them yourself or live with going through this every few years when the VC funds run out.
re: Docker, rant
@joepie91 @freemanovec only the private images, not? I understood that public images on the hub are fine.
re: Docker, rant
@arjen @freemanovec My understanding from what I've read so far, is that all images are affected. But the exact details have changed at least once already, so who knows really
re: Docker, rant
@freemanovec @joepie91 they are shutting down the free tier of Docker Hub
re: Docker, rant
@joepie91 Pretty much, why I Self-Host these days
re: Docker, rant
@joepie91@social.pixie.town huh what happened
re: Docker, rant
FOSS projects learn to organize non-commercial communal infrastructure challenge 2023 (impossible)