[hhsbz]

If it's alpine with glibc I don't see what's wrong with calling it that

[faho]

What's wrong with that is the reason trademarks exist: Confusion.

If something is called "alpine-glibc", it's reasonable to expect that it's by the alpine people and supported like alpine.

This, as we see here, annoys the alpine people because they now get bug reports and support requests from people using it, and have to direct people elsewhere. And when it doesn't work, they get the hit to their image even tho they've had nothing to do with it.

[jcelerier]

It's the old Iceweasel story all over again. Sadly open-source is ill-equipped to handle naming issues.

[hhsbz]

I think it's clear from the website that this is based on Alpine and not part of the project https://hub.docker.com/r/frolvlad/alpine-glibc/

Without context, I think what this guy is pissed off about is that this project enables people to use alpine to run proprietary software.

[creshal]

Except it's not, as it mixes glibc with musl in ways that induce undefined behaviour you don't expect. If it was recompiling all packages to use glibc, the name would be more appropriate… but also still a trademark violation.

[encryptluks2]

So, of the 49,530 images that show up with several using Alpine somewhere in the name or description... you think this is a trademark violation how? Alpine is synonymous with lightweight images. Several people and vendors use it in their image names.

[diegocg]

It makes it look like an "official" project.

Just give it a different name and explain that it's Alpine with glibc somewhere

[encryptluks2]

It does not. They use Alpine in the name so people can find the image. Searching for Alpine on Docker Hub has 49,530 results. This image doesn't even show up on the first page of results. I think whoever wrote this needs to rethink how ridiculous they are being.