News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by nikcub on Thursday April 20, 2017 @11:27AM (#14157519)
What a horrible title.

Docker isn't being renamed to Moby, but rather all of the open source components are being spun out into a new umbrella OSS org called Moby.

No need to s/docker/moby anywhere.

This is going to end up being a case study in how not to make announcements, because the news is otherwise big/interesting.

Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by grey-area on Thursday April 20, 2017 @12:20PM (#14158092)
This url is redirecting so that has changed (a rather important url):

https://github.com/docker/docker

This all seems so unnecessary. Why didn't they just keep docker docker and have docker-xxx for whatever other brands they want to introduce? Reminds me of CoreOS rebranding as Container Linux.

Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by prashnts on Thursday April 20, 2017 @12:35PM (#14158224)
> Why didn't they just keep docker docker

They'd lose 40k+ GitHub stars, I guess.

Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by rc_kas on Thursday April 20, 2017 @02:18PM (#14159289)
Your comment is the only one in this whole thread that anyone needs to read.
Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by kordless on Thursday April 20, 2017 @03:25PM (#14159974)
Yup, and your's as well, by extension. I'd add that the rebrand needed to happen, given naming a company and a product the same thing is never a good idea.
Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by sampwing on Thursday April 20, 2017 @07:22PM (#14161778)
Except the company and product still have the same name, it is just the open source project's name which is changing.
Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by kordless on Friday April 21, 2017 @12:48AM (#14163155)
I suppose at this point we should ask ourselves why everyone keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. That's irrationality defined.

You appear to be disagreeing with something I said, so I have to assume it's based on the assertion that naming a company AND product the same thing is usually a bad idea, at least for marketing purposes. The confusion that has arisen with other products in the past is real, and it's clear that people are confused with this move. That's why I said it. I didn't say it to be completely precise about what happened, because people aren't precise in understanding how companies market to them. It's a common mistake in marketing, of which I am moderately skilled, or so I hear.

Anyway, I would say, in general terms, that reality is perceived differently from person to person. This means that some may conceptually map a concept to a word in a completely different way than another. That some are confused about this particular change in mapping is a good indication that my recommendation is a sound one, where the product, company, project and repo should be called different things to avoid branding confusion[1] when the consumer is making a decision.

I would also add that this behavior of companies "being confused" in return to people's confusion resulting from a change in branding of something is also an indication of irrationality. And, it's also blaming in tone to assume people should "just get it" when these things are executed on poorly, at least marketing-wise.

[1] https://hbr.org/2002/03/brand-confusion