I had an interesting conversation with some #Docker executives on Friday, in which they highlighted some changes to their terms of service / business model. TL;DR: enterprises are now expected to pay for a full Docker subscription for *any* access to any "Docker Platform" features, including Docker Hub, regardless of pull rate.

So, for example, if you're a company with > 250 employees or > $10M revenue, and you have a Linux box pulling one open source image a week from Docker Hub, you must buy a Docker subscription for that box. And any others.

Previously, their website verbiage was focused solely on usage of Docker Desktop by enterprises.

If you are an #OpenSource maintainer and you're publishing container images on Docker Hub, they are monetizing your images, and they're doing so via a flat monthly rate regardless of consumption level. (IMHO that rate is too high, but YMMV, I guess)

This is obviously their prerogative. Really my only request/suggestion to Open Source maintainers who publish container images would be to consider also publishing them on GitHub's container registry (aka GitHub Packages) or any other registry, rather than single-sourcing with Docker Hub.

Containers: Just Because Everyone Else is Doing Them Wrong, Doesn't Mean You Have To - hastexo - https://www.hastexo.com/blogs/florian/2016/02/21/containers-just-because-everyone-else/#.Vsq7z5OLSjJ

#docker #lxc #linux #container
Containers: Just Because Everyone Else is Doing Them Wrong, Doesn't Mean You Have To

The recent CVE-2015-7547 vulnerability in glibc exposed a common antipattern in container management. Here's what you can do to avoid it, and instead adopt a container management pattern that will preserve your sanity and enable you to react to critical issues in minutes.