SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Docker, the technology, is the poster child for containers. But it appears Docker, the business, is in trouble. In a leaked memo, Docker CEO Rob Bearden praised workers -- despite the "uncertainty [which] brings with it significant challenges" and "persevering in spite of the lack of clarity we've had these past few weeks."
Lack of clarity about what? Sources close to the company say it's simple: Docker needs more money.
Indeed, Bearden opened by saying: "We have been engaging with investors to secure more financing to continue to execute on our strategy. I wanted to share a quick update on where we stand. We are currently in active negotiations with two investors and are working through final terms. We should be able to provide you a more complete update within the next couple of weeks."
Docker has already raised $272.9 million, but the company hasn't been profitable. It's[sic] venture-capitalist supporters -- ME Cloud Ventures, Benchmark, Coatue Management, Goldman Sachs, and Greylock Partners -- which have seen it through Series E financing, can't be happy, that after almost six-years, Docker still isn't close to an IPO.
While the previous CEO, Steve Singh, promised in May 2019 that Docker would be cash-flow positive by the end of this fiscal year, that appears not to have been the case. Otherwise, Docker wouldn't need to seek additional capital.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilsa on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:25PM (1 child)
I can't say that this surprises me even slightly.
While Docker, as a concept technology is great, their execution is probably one of the worst I've seen. Developers love docker because it's so easy to do stuff with it. But ask a Sysadmin what they think about docker and their face will alternate between various shades of red or pale.
Docker is not like some library you plug into your app, to be added or ripped out whenever the developer feels like it. Docker is infrastructure. Infrastructure, by it's very definition, must be stable. Docker isn't even remotely stable. Continual releases. Continual bugs and regressions. Docker follows the idiotic "move fast and break things" philosophy, and that means anyone who is responsible for maintaining infrastructure looks at Docker very VERY warily.
Tack on an orchestration layer like Kubernetes or Swarm, and you've just multiplied the complexity, the bugs, and the complications.
So what's happened? There is now a cottage industry for managing docker. Almost nobody runs their own kubernetes cluster on-prem unless they have a very specific use case. In fact, it is actively discouraged. Kubernetes in particular is working very well, primarily because we as end users are not having to worry about the underlying infrastructure. Google, Azure and AWS is. They're handling the version compatibility issues, etc, because only they have the economies of scale to justify the expense all that trial-and-error incurs.
So yeah, Docker has done a great job of making themselves irrelevant by all their dicking around. Hell, they can't even decide on a registry server without discontinuing the entire product and making an new one from scratch for no apparent reason whatsoever. If HTTP followed the "move fast and break things" philosophy, the internet as it currently exists, wouldn't. Microsoft would probably have gone bankrupt a long time ago if they cared so little about compatibility. The examples are endless.
Repeat after me: Infrastructure must be stable. The lower the level, the more dependent things there are on top, the more stable it needs to be.
End rant. :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 04 2019, @03:07AM
HTTP/2.0 and HTTP/3.0 follow your example perfectly well. Let's move from text based protocols to first binary and then UDP!