<story><title>An Overview of Docker Desktop Alternatives</title><url>https://matt-rickard.com/docker-desktop-alternatives/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dgellow</author><text>I personally find it quite sad to see reactions on HN regarding the introduction of Docker Desktop subscription model. We all benefit from a well supported Docker company, it’s good to see they are trying to look for a sustainable model. If your team is using their tools daily since years, and you decide to change to a different one just to avoid a small license fee, that feels hypocritical. If the tool worked for you when it was free, it still works when you have to pay a small license fee and brings the same value.&lt;p&gt;Companies paying for developer tooling is good for the ecosystem.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nerdjon</author><text>My problem is less that it is happening but how we got here.&lt;p&gt;If docker desktop was originally subscription based or they said that they wanted to make it subscription based later than the reaction would be very different.&lt;p&gt;But Docker as a company has failed multiple times now to attempt to make money and this feels like a hostage situation by taking away a tool that many now rely on.&lt;p&gt;They tried to go the support route like RedHat and others, but who needed just Docker support? Especially when there orchestration layer was basically DOA with k8s available.&lt;p&gt;Last year (?) they started limiting pulls from docker hub unless you paid up. Which spawned companies like AWS to announce their own free alternative&amp;#x2F;mirror.&lt;p&gt;At some point with in the last few months they made it so without paying I was forced to update docker desktop or constantly have to click snooze. I was perfectly happy with what it was currently doing and had no desire to update. But they added that artificial limitation after release.&lt;p&gt;Now they are charging for something that was once free without really explaining any benefits?&lt;p&gt;I think the reaction is perfectly valid given the companies track record.&lt;p&gt;There are likely other examples they have tried but likely just didn&amp;#x27;t notice. Since Docker is in a situation where docker itself is just not what most of us really think about. It is the orchestration and docker is just a path to that.&lt;p&gt;Edit: Also not super enthused about the idea that I now need to ask during a job interview what software I will be able to have locally for part of my workflow.</text></comment>
<story><title>An Overview of Docker Desktop Alternatives</title><url>https://matt-rickard.com/docker-desktop-alternatives/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dgellow</author><text>I personally find it quite sad to see reactions on HN regarding the introduction of Docker Desktop subscription model. We all benefit from a well supported Docker company, it’s good to see they are trying to look for a sustainable model. If your team is using their tools daily since years, and you decide to change to a different one just to avoid a small license fee, that feels hypocritical. If the tool worked for you when it was free, it still works when you have to pay a small license fee and brings the same value.&lt;p&gt;Companies paying for developer tooling is good for the ecosystem.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>agilob</author><text>&amp;gt;  it quite sad to see reactions on HN regarding the introduction of Docker Desktop subscription model.&lt;p&gt;Docker Desktop for Mac simply sucks. It starts slowly, has slow UX, burns CPU all the time even when not active and no container instance is running. They recently added that &amp;quot;you have to upgrade now&amp;quot; popup and it feels updates are more frequent. I might be biased here due to poor UX with the popups, updates were smoother before. If I&amp;#x27;m to pay for it, I really would like to have better experience using it. I can run VSCode, IntelliJ and Firefox with dozen of tabs open and my mac isn&amp;#x27;t as hot as when running docker desktop.</text></comment>