Docker hub going down would be a disaster for sure, but I consider "pull image/library from 3rd party hub over the internet on every build" to be an anti-pattern (which is considerably worse with npm, compared to docker). That said,if this is where the value is being provided, perhaps they ought to charge for this service? I guess it's difficult because it's easily commoditized.
> but can you imagine the fallout if Hub disappeared?
I wish that would actually happen - not forever - if it'd go down for a day or 2 with no ETA for a fix, and the thousands of failed builds/deploys will force organizations to rethink their processes.
I think Go's approach on libraries is the way forward - effectively having a caching proxy that you control. I know apt (the package manager) also supports a similar caching scheme.
Large orgs started hitting the rate limits since many devs were coming from the same ip. Most places probably put in a proxy that caches to a local registry.
That's what we did, put a proxy in front that caches everything. Now that Docker Desktop requires licensing, we're going down the road of getting everyone under a paid account.
I'm sure Rancher is great for personal desktop use, but there's no reason large companies can't pay for Docker.
Or even small. At work, I advised that we just pay for Docker Desktop. We got it for free for a long time. Our reason for not paying is that we're an Artifactory shop, so their Docker Enterprise offering wasn't really attractive to us. But we're easily getting $5/dev/mo worth of value out of Docker Desktop.
And I don't really see this as an open source bait and switch, either. Parts of Docker are open source but Docker Desktop was merely freeware.
That said, I believe in healthy competition, and so it was quite worrisome to me that Docker Desktop seemed to be the only legitimate game in town when it came to bringing containerization with decent UX and cross-platform compatibility to non-Linux development workstations. So I'm happy to see Rancher Desktop arrive on the scene, and very much hope to see the project gain traction. Even if we stay with Docker, they desperately need some legitimate competition on this front in order to be healthy.
> but can you imagine the fallout if Hub disappeared?
> I wish that would actually happen - not forever - if it'd go down for a day or 2 with no ETA for a fix
Do people not run their own private registry with proxying enabled? If Docker Hub went down at this point, I think my company would be fine for _months_. Only time we need to hit Hub is when our private registry doesn't have the image yet.
You can already cache dockerhub via the docker repo container very easily. In fact, due to the number of builds, it would be foolish not to do this to avoid GBs of downloads all the time.
> but can you imagine the fallout if Hub disappeared?
I wish that would actually happen - not forever - if it'd go down for a day or 2 with no ETA for a fix, and the thousands of failed builds/deploys will force organizations to rethink their processes.
I think Go's approach on libraries is the way forward - effectively having a caching proxy that you control. I know apt (the package manager) also supports a similar caching scheme.