[bru]

More information can be found there: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691

> Docker is transitioning all of its open source collaborations to the Moby project going forward.

Should I understand that the core team wants to keep the brand "Docker" but use it in a commercial way, while Moby will be the underlying open source code?

Is it Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora ? or Docker/Moby = Mongodb.com/Mongodb.org?

[Jabbermonkey]

Also from that thread:

Moby = open source development

Docker CE = free product release based on Moby

Docker EE = commercial product release based on Docker CE.

Nothing is dead; and everything that was open-source remains open-source. In fact we are open-sourcing new things.

[zamalek]

So essentially the difference between Chromium and Chrome?

[JdeBP]

You are better off looking at Oracle, the difference between (say) MySQL Community Edition and MySQL Enterprise Edition, and the relationships between MySQL and MariaDB and Percona.

[unixhero]

No, that would not be accurate.

The difference between them is like

Redhat Enterprise Linux (Costs Money, Enterprise Supported)

vs

CentOS (Community managed, community supported, Libre Free)

[bonzini]

CentOS comes from RHEL, while Docker comes from Moby. So the correct parallel is Fedora-RHEL or Wildfly-JBoss.

[tcrews]

Here is the initial Fedora/RH announcement, for reference:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/m...

[developer2]

Terrible timing for Docker to do this. It may not be much of an underlying change, but the simple fact that https://github.com/docker/docker redirects to https://github.com/moby/moby is a product-destroying move, as Docker is now just managing to spread to a wider audience.

This move is going to confuse many users, and could entirely derail their growth. What the hell were they thinking, to execute this decision at such a critical point in time? Docker was already confusing enough to get started with, and now there's an additional barrier to entry just to understand what it all means? People right now at least understand what "Docker" is; now people are going to be redirected to something called "Moby", and many will give up out of confusion.

Really bad timing for such a move.

tldr; Am I even supposed to call it "Docker" now? Years of growing recognition of that name, thrown out the window.

[lcalcote]

Users shouldn't be confused as they are able to continue using docker as they have in the past. The Moby project doesn't affect their consumption and use of docker.

[octo_t]

from https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/32691 as well:

> defining an open, community-centric governance inspired by the Fedora project

[tcrews]

That's a great idea. I really trust Red Hat and they have consistently delivered.

I don't think the same applies to Docker Inc. so my initial reaction is step on the brakes here.

[shykes]

Docker/Moby = RHEL/Fedora

[cookiecaper]

Except that you claim Docker will continue to have Docker CE (Fedora equivalent) and Docker EE (RHEL equivalent). These products will continue to be issued by Docker Inc., will they not? Will "Docker CE" be released as "Moby" in the future? If so, how will it be distinguished from the "Moby Project", which is just a bunch of "building blocks"?

If Moby is the name of a collection of subsystems that are drawn upon to build user-ready container platforms like Docker, isn't GNU userland/Linux kernel->(Fedora/Red Hat)->Red Hat Inc. as Moby->(Docker CE/EE)->Docker Inc.?

Perhaps a better way to explain it is that Moby is a "containerization kernel/core" a la Linux or an "open containerland" a la GNU. The term "framework" may be a little more accessible at the cost of diminishing street cred by appealing more to web devs than old-school system devs. These fancy words probably shouldn't be a problem since it seems only developers would be interested in Moby anyway (instead of end users who would want to use a Moby distribution).

With a little bit of finesse, this could've probably been construed as the boon for the open-source community that it seems you originally intended. "Docker Inc. donates its core technology to the open-source community and invites competitors to use it as the base of their own products." Too late to right the ship?

[shykes]

> Will "Docker CE" be released as "Moby" in the future? If so, how will it be distinguished from the "Moby Project", which is just a bunch of "building blocks"?

Docker CE will remain Docker CE. In the Fedora/RHEL analogy, think of Docker CE as the recently introduced "RHEL free developer edition". It's still a commercial product - it's just free and open-source.

> With a little bit of finesse, this could've probably been construed as the boon for the open-source community that it seems you originally intended. "Docker Inc. donates its core technology to the open-source community and invites competitors to use it as the base of their own products." Too late to right the ship?

You mean like this? :)

https://blog.docker.com/2017/04/introducing-the-moby-project...

http://www.cio.com/article/3191344/linux/why-docker-created-...

http://windowsitpro.com/cloud/docker-brings-open-collaborati...

https://jaxenter.com/docker-containers-moby-project-133404.h...

Outside of the Hacker News bubble, this is a non-issue. 500 people read the title of a pull request, didn't even read the contents of the change, and clicked on the "thumbs down" emoji. Meanwhile the vast majority of Docker users don't scan the repository for pull requests. And the majority of those who do actually take the time to read the code, and usually have enough context to understand why we are doing this: modularization, openness etc. In between these two groups, you have Hacker News basically.

That pull request was confusing, yes. And we clarified it. But it's an implementation detail and definitely not representative of how the Moby launch was understood by the community.

[nailer]

Summoning dang to update link.