The Moby project is a new open source project designed to advance the software containerization movement and help the ecosystem take containers mainstream. It provides a library of components, a framework for assembling those components into a system based on custom containers, and a place for all container enthusiasts to experiment and exchange ideas.
Moby is the most important open source project Docker technology has ever had. Docker started these studies around 2014, starting with a project called Notary, which later developed into Moby.
Anonymous users
It’s like a tongue twister, but it’s very simple.
One, one sentence version, the back can not see
Docker directly renamed the original Docker project to Moby, in order to transfer the huge fan group and Google search footprint built in the previous years to Docker’s commercial products.
Note: Docker’s commercial products include Docker EE and Docker CE, the former is a paid version for enterprises, and the latter is a free version for communities. That is to say, all the products you will use in the future (including those installed on your current machine) are Docker’s products (note, not projects). This product is called Docker CE (named as Docker 17.xx). Docker also goes to great lengths to encourage users to buy a paid version after a trial (which is normal).
2. About Moby
Moby will exist as an open source organization (Github Org). Docker CE is a product that will be built and compiled by the Moby project and other projects under the Moby organization. Projects under the Moby organization are co-maintained by community developers. This means that for Moby community participants, your future work is: contribute to projects under Moby and use Docker CE products.
You should also understand that there is no such thing as an open source project called Docker CE. Because Docker CE is a product, you must download it from the official website of Docker.
Third, what are users complaining about?
So far for this, A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent Components by Shykes · Pull Request #32691 · Moby/moby (https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691) this PR here are 588 of the 456 “on” and “confusion”, compared with 122 “like”, community developers dissatisfaction with the Docker company behavior.
There are probably a lot of competitors who like it, so it’s a relief to be in the open source community with Docker. After the split, Moby projects will be greatly affected in terms of Docker’s investment, the openness of new features, and the activeness of developers.
Oh, and the LinuxKit project is taking everyone’s jobs again, which is a little heartbreaking. The LinuxKit project isn’t about security at all. It’s distro. What, you still want to use CoreOS/RetHat/RancherOS? Wake up! The sword is pointing at you!
The same thing happened on HackerNews, of course: A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14156954) There was a lot of noise.
In fact, a normal technology company would choose to maintain its own open source project and sell an enterprise edition and enterprise services within its own company. There are so many examples that almost every open source project follows this pattern.
But only Docker, which renamed the Docker open source project, or to put it more bluntly, erased it. From this day forward, you will never find an open source project called Docker again. All the docker-related information you find on Google will point to the two Docker products. The original Docker project’s huge fan base has directly become Docker’s customers.
That’s why many Docker users aren’t buying Solomon’s repeated explanation that “existing Docker users aren’t affected.” The problem isn’t that some project has to be renamed, or that the dependency library doesn’t work.
The point is that users of the original Docker open source project were literally fooled.
This is unprecedented (I don’t know if there have been similar examples in the last 20 years).
Why do you do this?
There have been many successful open source projects in the past 20 years, but few successful commercial companies have been behind them. In a more serious case, a company like RedHat that has control at the operating system level is a modest success story. Other projects, the further up the ladder, the harder it is to monetize (because users are harder to retain). In fact, most commercial companies with open source projects are doing well enough to support the project. This is why, after so many years, the industry still has no problem talking about how to make money from open source. In a word, difficult.
Don’t you see, in this circle, numerous open source companies from Berkeley, Google and controlling core black technology are lying on the ground and cannot get up. Docker, a project that does not control core technology but takes the world by virtue of UI/UX, what is the profit prospect?
Docker can’t be blind to this problem. Not to forget that it was born out of a PaaS company (dotCloud), Solomon had little interest in the open source world. He’s been working on the next VMware since day one of the Docker project. Otherwise, he had no reason to turn down M$4 billion.
I want to sell products, but where are the users? More than 4W stars of the original Docker project beckoned to me.
Is it really that urgent? Rumors have been circulating around the Bay area that Docker’s investors have set tough profitability standards, and that’s not far-fetched. Being a pure backend technology unicorn does have a dilemma, but our goal is to go public on NASDAQ.
5. The future of Docker
There’s no doubt that Docker’s future is bright, with a new VMware on the horizon. Importantly, this new VMware is built on a new business model that we’ve all heard of in this new era: the fan economy.
One person asked: Aren’t developers getting offended by this?
Silly child. The people who are willing to pay Docker don’t have time for HackerNews and GitHub.
“Docker? Well, I’ve heard of it, and it seems to be quite popular. Xiao Liu, let’s do one too!”
Marketing ideas emerge endlessly, attracting new fans and reaping old fans. Isn’t that the essence of the model?
Determined to do VMware Docker company, there is no time to care about domestic sales of “self-developed Docker enterprise version” partners. What “Docker native”, you can native Docker EE? What’s more, the price is not necessarily cheap. Of course, there is a domestic advantage of lack of information, we can also pull the flag of Docker company, Docker’s huge fan tide of light.
Only Ali Cloud, the world’s third largest cloud, was willing to sell Docker EE as an agent of Docker. Serves him right when his DockerCon news was blocked by national broadcasters.
However, for participants in the open source community, there is a real hehe. With a project as big as Docker, it’s hard to overestimate the number of people clicking RIP. How active the Moby community is is a question mark, and remember how the old Docker Swarm project has been faltering since Docker switched its focus to Swarmkit. .
Moby Meetup, Moby Birthday #5, MobyCon2018?
Naive! Of course you will be authorized to use the Docker trademark and whale image. Just don’t be surprised if DockerCon will become Docker’s product conference in the future. By the way, there will be a sub-project called MobyCon for Moby during DockerCon. Welcome to join!
What, you want to have a Moby Meetup of your own? That’s crazy. Have you ever seen ESXi Con after VMWare World?
Go to bed.
High ce
(https://www.zhihu.com/people/gaocegege)
The moment I saw the name I thought Docker had been bought by Mobike and could ride a shared whale around, but it turned out not to be the case
As for the reasons for the migration, Can refer to shykes reply (https://github.com/shykes) Pull Request # 32691 Moby/moby (https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691#issuecomment-295754570), which is roughly said because of breaking the Docker moby Monolithic design now, Separate components into different repOS. Moby is responsible for building these components into Docker CE, and can also build their own Docker distributions through custom modifications, etc. Therefore, the current Docker code will be deprecated sooner or later.
Improving Docker with Unikernels improves Docker with Unkernels. Improving Docker with Unikernels improves Docker with Unikernels. Improving Docker with Unikernels improves Docker with Unikernels. Introducing HyperKit VPNKit and DataKit – Docker Blog (https://blog.docker.com/2016/05/docker-unikernels-open-source/). Docker should be removed with such granularity in the future.
However, I think the current practice is too extreme. Docker was directly transferred to Moby without any prelude, which leads to the confusion of the community and users. Shykes said that Docker also experienced the process from dotCloud to Docker before, Docker had 4W stars /w\ at that time
In addition I personally feel that Moby has a very notable subprojects, linuxkit/linuxkit (https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit). Given a linuxkit.yml, write the kernel and init, and then define the service to run. This is supposed to be the Kit of Moby at the operating system level, but this kit is very expensive, it is put in a separate org, I don’t know if it has a bigger vision in it.
In conclusion, it seems that this is a big news after Docker acquired Unikernel Systems. Docker for Mac is a test of the waters, and it may be introduced directly because it is relatively successful, and promoted comprehensively, which is really cool. This time Moby may be paving the way for opening container and Unikernel. Of course, he did not go to DockerCon 17 and he is not a Docker employee. It’s just a guess.