Live data from Hacker News

Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

coreos.com

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#52

This is exactly what I thought would happen when I switched off of CoreOS earlier this year. I recently switched back[0] since according to their blog post[1] Container Linux would live and not be replaced by their Atomic project... I thought I was a fool for overreacting. I don't want OpenShift, it looks like a bloated clusterfuck. I don't want Atomic either -- Container Linux had all the pieces I needed and not muc…

>What does everyone else use for their server distros? Install Gentoo.

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#53

This is exactly what I thought would happen when I switched off of CoreOS earlier this year. I recently switched back[0] since according to their blog post[1] Container Linux would live and not be replaced by their Atomic project... I thought I was a fool for overreacting. I don't want OpenShift, it looks like a bloated clusterfuck. I don't want Atomic either -- Container Linux had all the pieces I needed and not muc…

If you're on coreos, probably just wait till early next year to see what the new OS will be like, then make a decision.

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO OpenShift is RedHat's attempt to embrace extend and extinguish vanilla Kubernetes because it threatens their Enterprise OS domination. The host OS for Kubernetes clusters is mostly irrelevant. It's like Kubernetes... forked from it, but adds all this other shit while they continue to just say it is Kubernetes under the hood. Technically true, but once you go to the OpenShift you're pretty much locked into RedHat'…

OpenShift predates Kubernetes by a bit, and IMO they operate at different levels (OpenShift is "deeper" and overlaps in some spots with Kubernetes). Also, I'm just about 100% sure no one is stupid/brave enough to challenge Kubernetes' current dominance in the container orchestration space right now. Kubernetes is complete enough and not-bad enough to be the defacto choice right now, and I doubt much will change -- pl…

OpenShift was re-written to be based on Kubernetes as of version 3 in 2014: https://blog.openshift.com/openshift-v3-platform-combines-do...

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#55

What is the story with rkt? Is it deprecated?

Yes, they announced at the Red Hat summit that they'll be phasing out development of rkt, though of course will do nothing to stop outside development. Between docker and cri-o, I think they decided that the need for a third supported and actively developed runtime wasn't enough to justify the effort. I'm excited to have the rkt developers work on cri-o, assuming that's where they're going.

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#56
Where does SilverBlue fit in? Is it going to be the workstation distro of Fedora CoreOS that bundles a GUI and some userland tools?

https://teamsilverblue.org/

I’ve been interested for about a year and gave Atomic a couple test drives, but with the CoreOS acquisition and so much overlap between these projects I’m wondering if RedHat actually has a plan for each of them.

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#57
In general, I'm pretty happy about this. The more I used Atomic Host, the more I liked it. While it was a pretty dramatic departure from Fedora's dnf/rpm world, I really like how rpm-ostree handled the Atomic update/rollback stuff. I thought it was a nice middle ground between a traditional Linux distro and Container Linux's "just slap a new image down to disk for upgrades". I think there's a time and place for both and Atomic Host had a nice merging. Container Linux with the rpm-ostree tooling should be really nice for orgs that want to customize their distributions.

I'm only a novice Ignition user though, so I'd appreciate it if anyone could tell me what benefit it has over kickstart for provisioning nodes and clusters that makes Red Hat want to keep using it. Kickstart clearly has way more configurability for deciding how you want the host to be provisioned (at the expense of added complexity), so the only place I see Ignition adding value is that it's a really easy way to group nodes and assign roles by hostname, like a lightweight Cobbler install or something. Am I missing something else?

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#58
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happily use Ubuntu on a few thousand servers running 10s of thousands of containers. We're a polyglot shop with lots of java and lots of go/node and my comfort level with ubuntu is high.

I am also a big fan of Ubuntu Server and Mark Shuttleworth. The guy does not get the proper credit. He's basically running a charity for hackers and startups yet, for some reason, is not very popular on HN.

He's a risk taker with Unity/Ubuntu Phone/other things that didn't pan out, and people treat it like Google abandoning their products. Canonical has money, but not Google money.

People also get overly bent out of shape for having Amazon search integration with the desktop at one point, which I did not like, but it had a clear, functional way to disable that function.

At least, those are my theories.

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#59
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also a big fan of Ubuntu Server and Mark Shuttleworth. The guy does not get the proper credit. He's basically running a charity for hackers and startups yet, for some reason, is not very popular on HN.

He's a risk taker with Unity/Ubuntu Phone/other things that didn't pan out, and people treat it like Google abandoning their products. Canonical has money, but not Google money. People also get overly bent out of shape for having Amazon search integration with the desktop at one point, which I did not like, but it had a clear, functional way to disable that function. At least, those are my theories.

Their revenue of ~$126M in 2017 is very modest compared with its rivals Red Hat (~$3B) or Microsoft (~$90B). My biggest fear is that one of them may take over Canonical and shut down Ubuntu.

Re: Fedora CoreOS, Red Hat CoreOS, and the future of Container Linux

#60
post #3

If you have a deployed fleet of CoreOS instances, FlatCar[1] looks like a viable alternative. This article from NewStack gets into the details. [1] https://www.flatcar-linux.org/ [2] https://thenewstack.io/flatcar-linux-the-coreos-operating-sy...

Why would one want to do that?
Post reply on HN