I guess people at Docker wanted to make an agent.
replyHaving it docker branded, I could understand. It’s confusing but the docker brand is strong.
But exposing it as a docker subcommand is very confusing to me.
You don't really have to use the docker agent sub-command. docker-agent is a standalone binary. When it was created, though, 1.5 year ago, the idea was that it would be the docker compose for agents (original name was cagent, compose for agents).
replyBut it evolved differently and although it runs very well in docker containers and docker sandboxes, it also runs very well anywhere else.
It reads to me like chasing trends
replyThat's the economy we've always been in. X is popular, if your company doesn't have a solution for X you're irrelevant.
replythat's all docker has been doing for years.
replythe tools and features certainly indicate so
replyThe quest for staying relevant.
replyBased on the repo short description and the first sentence of the readme:
replyIt is called 'Docker' as the company, and it has nothing to do with the container technology.
deleted
replyThis made me laugh. Not sure why. But the whole situation is very absurd now.
replyIt's the Docker you know and love... with AI!
replyDocker is rapidly fading into irrelevance now that they have missed their strategic acquisition interval via the Microsoft collab misstep, and now has to hype chase as fewer and fewer people believe in their long term viability as a company.
replyGreat tech. Not a business.