Docker, rant
To put it bluntly, y'all got suckered, *again*, particularly the "Docker Captains" who did volunteer marketing work for a for-profit corporation.
How often does it need to be repeated? Corporations are not your friend, corporations are not communities, and doing free work for them means you're getting exploited.
"Free" shit from corporations is never truly free. It only exists for as long as necessary to have you do free marketing and grow their company for them. A corporation will 100% leave you for dead once that's been accomplished and they no longer need you.
When will people finally learn from this, and the thousands of similar failures before it, and stop defending corporations or buying into their "free for open-source" marketing?
I would be a lot less salty about this if I didn't get an absurd amount of backlash from weirdly defensive nerds every time I tried to warn people against predatory marketing schemes. Y'all are *part of the problem*.
@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 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