Not open either, so that'll go the same way in the end. People will want more money no? Or get bought and then the buyers want more money... Pick something open and self hosted OR that at least allows you to move everything and tinker with it yourself when (not if) the company becomes evilll.
None of your companies need to worry about licenses. Docker ENGINE is free and open source. Docker DESKTOP is a software suite that requires you to purchase a license to use in a company.
But Docker Engine, the core component which works on Linux, Mac and Windows through WSL2, that is completely and 1000% free to use.
>This section describes how to install Docker Engine on Linux, also known as Docker CE. Docker Engine is also available for Windows, macOS, and Linux, through Docker Desktop.
I'm not an expert but everything I read online says that Docker runs on Linux so with Mac you need a virtual environment like Docker Desktop, Colima, or Podman to run it.
Docker desktop will run a virtual machine for you. But you can simply install docker engine in wsl or in a VM on mac exactly like you would on linux (you give up maybe automatic port forwarding from the VM to your host)
> But you can simply install docker engine in wsl or in a VM on mac exactly like you would on linux (you give up maybe automatic port forwarding from the VM to your host)
and sharing files from the host, ide integration, etc.
Not that it can't be done. But doing it is not just, 'run it'. Now you manage a vm, change your workflow, etc.
Of course, but that's the value-add of Docker Desktop. But you don't have to tie yourself to it, or even if you do use it for a bit to get going faster, you have a migration path open to doing it yourself should you need it.
Ironic username. As a die hard, WSL aint bad though. I just can't deal with an OS that automatically quarantines bittorrent clients, decides to override local administrator policies via windows updates and pops up ad notifications.
I personally use Windows + WSL2 and for work use macOS. I prefer Windows + WSL2 by a longshot. It just "works". macOS never "just works" for me. Colima is fine but requires a static memory allocation for the VM, it doesn't have the level of polish that WSL2 has. Brew is awful compared to apt (which you get with WSL2 because it's just Linux).
And then there's the windowing system of macOS that feels like it's straight from the 90s. "System tray" icons that accumulate over time and are distracting, awful window management with clunky animations, the near useless dock (clicking on VS Code shows all my 6 IDEs, why?). Windows and Linux are much modern in that regard.
The Mac hardware is amazing, well worth its price, but the OS feels like it's from a decade ago.
All my personal machines run linux. At work my choices are Mac or Windows. If Macs were still x86_64 I might choose that and run a VM, but I have no interest in learning the pitfalls of cross arch emulation or dealing with arm64 linux distro for a development machine.
I never notice the difference between arm64 and x86 environments, since I'm flipping between them all the time just because the arm boxes are so much cheaper. The only time it matters to me is building containers, and then it's just a matter of passing `--platform=linux/amd64,linux/arm64` to `docker buildx`.
If you're building really arch-specific stuff, then I could see not wanting to go there, but Rosetta support is pretty much seamless. It's just slower.
I use WSL for work because we have no linux client options. It's generally fine, but both forced windows update reboots as well as seemingly random wsl reboots (assuming because of some component update?) can really bite you if you're in the middle of something.
It's not all that bad these days ever since they added virtio support. Orbstack is well worth paying for as an alternative, but that won't solve anyone's procurement headaches either.
Oh! I wasn’t trying to make a big point except that paying for software isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and if you’re already invested in Macs you’re presumably OK with paying good money for good products.
Having used Docker Desktop on a Mac myself, it seems... fine? It does the job well enough, and it’s part of the development rather than production flow so it doesn’t need to be perfect, just unobtrusive.
I am using MacOS and like a year ago I uninstalled docker and docker desktop, installed podman and podman-compose, and have changed literally nothing else about how I use containers and docker image building/running locally. It was a drop-in replacement for me.
It's well worth it its much more than a gui for it supports running k8s locally, managing custom vm instances, resource monitoring of containers, built in local domain name support with ssl mycontainer.orb, a debug shell that gives you ability to install packages that are not available in the image by default, much better and automated volume mounting and view every container in finder, ability to query logs, an amazing ui, plus it is much, much faster and more resource efficient.
The above features really do make it worth it especially when using existing services that have complicated failure logs or are resource intensive like redis, postgres, livekit, etc or you have a lot of ports running and want to call your service without having to worry about remembering port numbers or complicated docker network configuration.
Docker Desktops also supports a local kubernetes stack, but it takes several minutes to start up, and I think in the end it's just minikube? Haven't tried Orbstack's k8s stack myself since I'm good with k3d. I did have cause though to spin up a VM a while back, and that was buttah.
Yes, Orbstack is significantly better than Docker Desktop, and probably also better than any other Docker replacement out there right now (for macOS), if you aren't bothered by the (reasonable) pricing.
It costs about $100/year per seat for commercial use, IIRC. But it is significantly faster than Docker Desktop at literally everything, has a way better UI, and a bunch of QoL features that are nice. Plus Linux virtualization that is both better and (repeating on this theme) significantly more performant than Parallels or VMWare Fusion or UTM.
I happily embraced it, to each their own I guess. There are folks who mainly work on their mac/windows laptops and just ssh into their workstation, but IT gives us way more freedom (full sudo access) on Linux so I can customize a lot more which makes me a lot happier.
Will the book cover how Ford nearly lost it all in his efforts of improving the manufacturing process and lowering the costs of the Model T? In the end people had enough of the car and wanted something new, but all Ford could produce - arguably really well - was the Model T. The competitors focused their manufacturing process such that they could efficiently reuse components for a handful of years, then they made small changes to make their new models "feel new and exciting", as we see today, which gave them the upper hand when people got fed up of the Model T.
I'm waiting for history to repeat itself with Tesla, but it's not a popular (hi)story to tell. Not as popular as how great an American pioneer Henry Ford was, for sure.
At least the OP excerpt focuses only on Ford’s efficiency engine: precision machining, interchangeable parts, and the moving assembly line combined with extreme production volumes to make the Model T nearly impossible to compete with on cost and reliability. But there’s a deeper lesson than just “Ford was rigid, GM was flexible.”
The real dynamic was that efficiency and scale compound improvements but also compound lock-in. The more Ford optimized his system around one product, the higher the switching cost to change anything fundamental. Every special-purpose machine tool, every supplier contract, every material flow was tuned to one car. At small scale, that’s agility. At massive scale, it’s a straitjacket.
Tesla faces a version of this trap. Its efficiency engine is vertical integration and battery/powertrain mastery. But the stronger that engine gets, the more risk that its identity collapses into “this is what we make, as efficiently as possible,” rather than “this is what the market wants, however we must adapt.” GM in the 1920s wasn’t just adding variety for fun, it was creating a systematic upgrade ladder (“a car for every purse and purpose” as Sloan said at the time) that turned consumer churn into a growth engine (allowing customers to start with basic models like Chevrolet and progressively upgrade to more luxurious brands such as Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac). I agree that Tesla hasn’t yet built an equivalent mechanism to capture customers once they’ve “had enough of the Model T.”
The irony is that efficiency-driven firms almost never stumble because they stop improving; they stumble because all their improvements are local optimizations. Ford’s engineers in 1925 were still making operations faster, parts cheaper, and tolerances tighter, but all within the cage of the Model T. Tesla today is in danger of repeating this exact logic trap: world-class at batteries and drivetrains, but perhaps blind to the fact that consumer perception, design novelty, and product line evolution can erode even the strongest cost advantage.
Tesla would have a massive advantage compared to conventional car makers if they decided to broaden their product line. That advantage is their dealer-light model. They could decide that they'll do a batch of purple cars once a quarter. If you select purple in their configurator, your delivery date gets pushed out by up to 3 months appropriately. No dealer would ever stock a purple car. So Tesla could get a lock on the small number of people who want purple cars.
(Yes, I know about wraps, substitute "purple" for whatever feature or body style or quirk it is you have trouble finding on modern cars)
Maybe Rivian will fill this niche if Tesla doesn't.
Honestly, I think a "MUSK SUCKS" limited edition paint job would sell amazingly well. He is the kind of CEO who would find that joke funny, too (the irony that somebody bought his product in an anti-him version, thus still supporting what they actively advertise that they dislike... it's perfect).
Looks like a product you'd end up with if a few years back you thought to yourself "how do I make a business combining AI and pipelines?". I don't hate AI as such, I just don't love how it has to be shoved into every product or tech imaginable these days.
I'm sure they can find a community elsewhere. Discord comes to mind... "Oh but it's illegal", trust me on this: Discord only cares if somebody actually reports the server and the violations are severe enough.
But why should they _have_ to find a community elsewhere?
It is right that a country should snuff out all communities, large and small, and drive them to hosting in another country, or "under the wing" of a behemoth with a fully-funded legal department?
It's never the stated purpose of the law, but we might do well to be concerned with what it actually does rather than what the proponents claim it would do.
Recourse doesn't matter for a sole proprietorship. If they have to engage with a lawyer whatsoever, the site is dead or blocked because they don't have the resources for that.
I’d encourage you to read the actual text of the law and not just others’ interpretation. The sole proprietorship likely falls into one of the exception clauses or is likely using a platform.
I feel like you're not understanding; people aren't going to read the law, because the law is non-trivial and they don't feel comfortable doing that themselves instead of hiring a lawyer. But they can't afford to hire a lawyer, so instead they're going to block.
What recourse? A small, 5o-member community doesn't have the resources to ensure they're in compliance, and Ofcom's statement about how smaller players are "unlikely" to be affected is not particularly reassuring.
The "stated purpose" is irrelevant. Even if they are being honest about their stated purpose (questionable), the only thing that matters is how it ends up playing out in reality.
Read the actual text of the law. It creates opportunities to appeal and other options. Another option is for these communities to band together, which seems to be happening.
If you keep Apache itself up-to-date then typically speaking no. There is always a reason to be on the lookout and <insert generic speech about security concerns here>, but static files are - well - static. Not much to mess with there.
If you choose to do smart things like caching and such, that opens a whole new can of worms, but basic "this is my HTML page" stuff is typically "not-unsafe" (as opposed to "safe").
