They more or less ignored the file sync issue of Docker for Mac, until there was a push asking the Docker devs for more transparency. There were other issues with the release, and where people did not push for it, issues would languish with no one from the dev team saying anything. It sometimes feels like a culture of coverups and shame. (Let's hide this under here and maybe no one will notice).
If people are feeling the "users are stupid", combined with what looks like coverup culture, I find Docker's blog posts less and less credible.
For example, there was a recent blog post about An independent security review comparing Docker to other similar technologies, including rkt. The conclusion of the post was that Docker is secure by default. (I'll leave it to the reader's own opinion whether that is true or not; this is not the issue I am pointing out).
What is so weird is that, nearly two years after the fact, the tone in that blog post was still as if CoreOS had betrayed them. And while I get there are hurt feelings involved, this is not a high school popularity contest. When combined with arrogance and coverup culture, I can see Docker moving in a direction that drives them further and further from relevancy.
Based on what I'm hearing here about Docker Swarm, Swarm is basically a great advertising for K8S or Mesos. No one there is pretending that multi-node orchestration is an easy problem. If the divergence from the community continues, I can see lots of people fed up and going over to rkt, or something else that works just as well.
> They more or less ignored the file sync issue of Docker for Mac
Which particular problem? The crappy performance/CPU usage one(s), or something else? Having used various different approaches (docker in vmware linux/virtualbox), the d4m (osxfs?) one seemed to be the least broken for general dev stuff.
Hopefully not more issues I need to keep a lookout for.
Crappy performance related to the osxfs --latency issues for writes for host volumes. It's getting closer to the latency as Docker for Linux. (I hear though, workarounds like using unisonfs and fswatch works all right)
There is also the bit about host networking. Since Docker for Mac runs a transparent Linux, the host networking goes there instead. That thread ended up in a big, roaring silence.
If people are feeling the "users are stupid", combined with what looks like coverup culture, I find Docker's blog posts less and less credible.
For example, there was a recent blog post about An independent security review comparing Docker to other similar technologies, including rkt. The conclusion of the post was that Docker is secure by default. (I'll leave it to the reader's own opinion whether that is true or not; this is not the issue I am pointing out).
What is so weird is that, nearly two years after the fact, the tone in that blog post was still as if CoreOS had betrayed them. And while I get there are hurt feelings involved, this is not a high school popularity contest. When combined with arrogance and coverup culture, I can see Docker moving in a direction that drives them further and further from relevancy.
Based on what I'm hearing here about Docker Swarm, Swarm is basically a great advertising for K8S or Mesos. No one there is pretending that multi-node orchestration is an easy problem. If the divergence from the community continues, I can see lots of people fed up and going over to rkt, or something else that works just as well.