Talk:Docker (software)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Docker (software) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 years

Linux Mid‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Security concerns

There should be a section explaining some recent security concerns with Docker, especially "Cryptojacking" through infected packages. 2018 and Summer 2020; The german version of the Docker wikipage seemed to have mentioned them already. I wish for this to be the case here as well.

A few links: Tainted, crypto-mining containers pulled from Docker Hub

https://thehackernews.com/2022/04/watch-out-cryptocurrency-miners.html

[dockmylife/memorytest] Report malicious image #1121

Yet Another Crypto Mining Botnet?

Docker Images Containing Cryptojacking Malware Distributed via Docker Hub

--AloisIrlmaier (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Adding some more, regarding root access: Docker containers are filled with vulnerabilities: Here’s how the top 1,000 fared

These vulnerabilities definitely need to be mentioned for once.

--AloisIrlmaier (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand this

To me, this looks like a promotional article or so. I still (as of January 2021) don't understand at all what does this do, how it warks, its advantages and/or disadvantages, if I can use it only by paying to the company that invented it or if it's available for free use, or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.162.208.253 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. I use docker with Visual Studio to run Linux on a native Windows machine. The article is terrible. The second paragraph about deployment of automated applications doesn't even make sense. 2601:2C0:4400:EDE0:0:0:0:B6AF (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--77.102.221.126 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)I learned more about the concept <dockerimage> from reading the talk page, than from the article. Surely someone can explain this concept, even if there are no refereces to back up the explanation! 77.102.221.126 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also miss a section on the article that mentions the many security concerns of Docker which definitely are worth mentioning at least once, especially Cryptojacking and many popular containers with unprotected root accounts. AloisIrlmaier (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved, and closed early per WP:SNOW. However, there's a discussion about the redirect "Docker" over at RfD. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Docker (software) → Docker – Currently as of the time of this writing Docker is a redirect to stevedore. It appears this originated from “docker” being a U. K. term for a dockworker or longshoreman. IMHO if a user explicitly be searching for “Docker” with a capital “D,” they are almost certainly looking for the software rather than trying to find out about dockworkers in general; furthermore, I would submit that this should reflect a global perspective and not a narrower one more locally related to U. K. terminology, and I would note that “dockworker” is already a redirect to stevedore. It also appears that in the past others have tried to have “Docker” at least redirect to docker (disambiguation), but that effort has also failed because it apparently violates WP:MALPLACED, which states that a disambiguation page for “docker” should instead exist at “docker” itself if “docker” not have a primary topic. IMHO this is all stupid because the end result of all this mess is that “Docker” will remain a redirect to “stevedore” indefinitely which IMHO makes no sense since a Google search for “Docker” results in the first several pages all being related to the software, and not a single result for “dockworker” or “stevedore.” Suggest/propose moving this page, Docker (software), to Docker to solve this problem once and for all, since apparently “docker” can’t be a redirect to “docker (disambiguation)” due to WP:MALPLACED. PowerPCG5 (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions:
2015: Docker (disambiguation) → Docker, not moved.
2019: Docker (disambiguation) → Docker, not moved.
– Thjarkur (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - the overwhelming primary of docker in Gbooks and Gnews and the world outside the USA is docker. What else would it be? And how can a user "be searching for “Docker” with a capital “D,” when all articles begin with capitals. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but might support the move of the disambiguation page to Docker: the software and the occupation have different claims to be Primary Topic (note that "docker" as a worker is common in UK English, rather than "stevedore"), so a dab page at the base name seems the best solution. No-one lands on the page they need first time round, but also no-one lands on a completely alien page ("I want to find out about software, why am I looking at dock workers?" or "I want to know about dock labourers, why am I seeing software?"). I had never heard of the software until seeing this discussion linked on a talk page, but on looking around it does seem to be a very significant usage of the word. Any distinction between "Docker" and "docker" is irrelevant, as Wikipedia by default capitalises first word of all article titles. PamD 09:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly not the root origin of the word, and longterm significance is also factored into whether something is a primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Software clearly isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term. WP:ENGVAR issue. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose moving the software to the base title, but I would Support moving the disambiguation page to that title. I think this is an ambiguous term with multiple senses and I'm not seeing that "dock worker" is the unambiguous primary topic of this phrase. @PowerPCG5: I don't know if anybody else has told you this yet, but please don't attempt to move pages by cutting and pasting their content to a new title, as this breaks the page history that is legally required for attribution under Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please see WP:CUTANDPASTE. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:ASTONISH and the long-term significance but support moving the DAB to the base name as a compromise. As already noted its not possible to distinguish between an initial capital and lower case, see also Talk:Dockers (brand)#Requested move 13 August 2019 and even if it was the term would still be capitalized at the start of a sentence. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe snow close this RM and discuss at the RfD instead? 162.208.168.92 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

License compliance

1. Someone might like to work this legal information on license compliance into the article:^[1] Cheers. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jaeger, Till (April 2021). "Distribution of Dockerfiles: who is responsible for FOSS licence compliance?". Journal of Open Law, Technology and Society. 12 (1): 13–20. doi:10.5033/jolts.v12i1.147. ISSN 2666-8106. Retrieved 2021-04-21.

2. Under section "License model", there is no mentioning regarding licensing of the docker images. (which would be useful)

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Asayal1690/Docker, incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 22:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is Almost Meaningless Jargon.

I use docker but if I didn't already know, I would not learn anything from this article. It should get to the point about how it is useful with perhaps an example. It's about the worst I've ever seen. Reminds me of the Enron business model statement. 2601:2C0:4400:EDE0:0:0:0:B6AF (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[jaeger-2021-1] Jaeger, Till (April 2021). "Distribution of Dockerfiles: who is responsible for FOSS licence compliance?". Journal of Open Law, Technology and Society. 12 (1): 13–20. doi:10.5033/jolts.v12i1.147. ISSN 2666-8106. Retrieved 2021-04-21.

[1]