Hacker News Reader

Comment by csomar | Hacker News Reader

This is really much needed (if they did it right). The container registry @ docker is terribly broken and the user experience is frustrating. I ended up using Git repositories + building on server because it was "so unusable".

Hopefully, this changes things.

View on HN

Same story for my team. DockerHub is a mess from a UX perspective and pricing structure which goes against the microservices concepts that Docker enables.

More than 50 container images and I need to "Contact Sales" for an Enterprise contract? Really?

In a (brief) defense of Docker Hub, it has gotten WAY better in just the last 6 months. UX is sufficient for the number of times you interact with the website, versus command line. Still it is very slow and this has an impact on my continuous deployment ambitions.

In a world where we routinely ship 0.x tools to production, it may feel a bit peculiar to see 2.0 as being the first 'production ready' version for Docker's suite of tools, but that very well may be the reality.

wow. I used it last month. Don't want to imagine how it was.

Docker files are still insufficient for building anything but trivial bloated stacks using any docker registry build service, forcing you to setup a CI pipeline to build and push your containers to your registry. They froze the syntax and this mountain of trouble is just getting worse.

Then they modernised the UI and its just like ... Terrible. I have no more words for how much of a step backwards the latest UI is compared to the original one.

Are you using it to build images? Anyone know of an image building service other than the current CI/CD suspects?

Maybe something like https://www.tutum.co/?

"coming soon" is listed on their build service, so no. I wonder if they do that in an unprivileged container?

yea I'm hoping that this will speed up pushing/pulling and it's not just on the Docker Engine side because taking 1+ minutes to push a >500MB image is ridiculous...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com