top | item 32116299 (no title) cycomachead | 3 years ago This is a valid point, but definitely a misleading title. discuss order hn newest capableweb|3 years ago How is it misleading? The entire post reads like a PR piece for their company, but the title seems faithful. golergka|3 years ago They didn't delete a part of container, they deleted a part of the docker file. Actually removing data from already built container image, as title suggests, would be much more impressive. load replies (3) codervinod|3 years ago I would like to understand what’s misleading. You could download the container and compare sizes and binary with source container. codervinod|3 years ago I have updated the title to remove confusion. Thanks for calling it out. There was no intention to mislead the community.
capableweb|3 years ago How is it misleading? The entire post reads like a PR piece for their company, but the title seems faithful. golergka|3 years ago They didn't delete a part of container, they deleted a part of the docker file. Actually removing data from already built container image, as title suggests, would be much more impressive. load replies (3)
golergka|3 years ago They didn't delete a part of container, they deleted a part of the docker file. Actually removing data from already built container image, as title suggests, would be much more impressive. load replies (3)
codervinod|3 years ago I would like to understand what’s misleading. You could download the container and compare sizes and binary with source container.
codervinod|3 years ago I have updated the title to remove confusion. Thanks for calling it out. There was no intention to mislead the community.
capableweb|3 years ago
golergka|3 years ago
codervinod|3 years ago
codervinod|3 years ago