The source code for Bitnami containers and Helm charts remains publicly available on GitHub and continues to be licensed under Apache 2.
What’s changing is that Bitnami will no longer publish the full catalog of container images to DockerHub. If you need any image, you can still build/package it yourself from the open-source GitHub repositories.
What about the bitnami:minideb base image?
Or the stacksmith files necessary to build certain images?
Without access to these resources, it will not be possible to rebuild the images, will it?
Projects like Sealed Secrets and minideb remain unaffected by these changes. Container images for both projects will continue to be released on Docker Hub (docker.io/bitnami) as usual, without any modifications.
The source code will continue to be available for containers, allowing you to build them from source and future versions as well. The Stacksmith tarballs will also remain available.
The planned action is to stop providing the already built containers on Docker Hub.
Check out Artifact Hub, the CNCF-hosted charts from projects like Prometheus/Grafana, or the official k8s-at-home charts as solid alternatives to Bitnami.
Sure but I’m not talking about just the CEO. I’m talking engineering managers all the way down. And I guess I’m not really talking about specific college degrees either, but a culture and mindset of engineering.
>Sure but I’m not talking about just the CEO. I’m talking engineering managers all the way down. And I guess I’m not really talking about specific college degrees either, but a culture and mindset of engineering.
Many here have misunderstood you,conflating the the stereotypical MBA type ( who is a essentially a con man) with an MBA degree. A 'mindset' of engineering BTW has to to be explained to the non-engineering personalities. Besides the obvious inclination for technical things, the next best trait is perhaps that of integrity. You really cannot put together a working great product unless there is there is a commitment at several levels, all of which could be loosely lumped under the personality trait of integrity.
It seems like the problem with Boeing is that they acquired a failing company (McDonnell-Douglas), but then kept all the executives and let them run Boeing, even though they'd just ruined the last company.
Maybe they preferred that over letting some pleb engineer into the executive aristocracy.
Oh, I don't blame him at all. A commercial airliner is a decade long project to undertake. However its clear he was not the leader to lead a company through a crisis.
A quick look at their 10Q does not show that their Energy generation and storage business is extremely profitable. It eeks out a small profit before operating expenses. That may change in the future. It is also a small business relative to their car business.
'Boom' is a tiny little venture company that may or may not make actual commercial viability, in a niche sector.
Boom is not remotely trying to enter the market for real commercial traffic, which is essentially impossible for a regular private company.
There are no successful airline manufactures that exist without the expressed coordination of a national strategy.
Boeing is a 'strategic asset' - they are supported by massive military contracts and other industrial subsidies. They have Federal level support from the diplomatic corps and may involve themselves in foreign policy. Sales of aircraft may be tied to other mechanisms of statecraft.
Airbus - even more so, practically a creation of European governments.
To give an example of what happens when nations are not powerful, look at Bombardier in Canada - which was squeezed out of a more niche are of commercial aircraft by state actions.
Boeing complained to Donald Trump about 'unfair competition' - the US - against NAFTA treaty - imposed a 250% duty on Bombardier jets. To get around this, Bombardier had to drop their pants and do an ugly deal with Airbus. Eventually, this inability to flex material power in conjunction with other state assets ... and it's a flop for Canada, and a 'win' for a bigger entity backed by a more powerful state entity as the commercial aircraft business was sold off to Airbus.
If Canada had a huge domestic market, this probably would not be the case.
Edit: it's possible Boom eventually develops into a much bigger entity, maybe in 40 years, using their 'smaller, currently niche but growing industry' as an entry point. But taking on Boeing is tantamount to taking on Microsoft directly.
If those kind of risks were imposed on banks they would only work with businesses they knew very well or not at all. As it is there were significant questions from the banks side on what they would be liable for if the loan was ultimately found to be invalid, or fraud.
