61–70 of 155 posts
I wanted to contribute but I am a single freelance developer, I don't have the amount of money shown on the sponsorship options. I would be great to have a USD 50 option there.
I wanted to contribute but I am a single freelance developer, I don't have the amount of money shown on the sponsorship options. I would be great to have a USD 50 option there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So integrating with VPS providers such as Linode and Digital Ocean will be possible? If so, would this be easy to do for end-users? Never got in to Cloud Foundry because it's overly complex and very limiting. Always went with Heroku, but wished I could have a Heroku-style infrastructure on the above mentioned VPS providers for the benefits of running better hardware, being more affordable, being multi-region, etc, et…
Docker runs on linode and digital ocean ( https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/469 , https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/424 ) by loading a custom kernel. Assuming the requirements for Flynn aren't much more than Docker, the whole stack should run there as well. Easy for end-users is probably a matter of opinion, especially until Flynn releases some code.
Digital Ocean: http://kencochrane.net/blog/2013/06/running-docker-on-digita...
Rackspace: http://kencochrane.net/blog/2013/05/running-docker-on-racksp...
Linode: http://stinemat.es (site seems to be down at the moment)
I wanted to contribute but I am a single freelance developer, I don't have the amount of money shown on the sponsorship options. I would be great to have a USD 50 option there.
For now, the best way you can help is to try and sell your organization on sponsoring a larger amount. We can help you if they're interested. :)
Heroku I'm looking at you, lower your prices.
Ultimately, it seems, heroku will need to find an additional axis (besides ease of use) to differentiate on. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Apple sure has been able to turn ease of use into a sustainable competitive advantage. In heroku's case, though, there are fewer UI decisions and its audience is super-technical, so I'd be surprised if ease of use alone is sustainable in this domain.
We'll see. I want to see them win, to be honest, because I feel like they've done so much good in a providing such an accessible and (at first at least) cheap way for a developer to get his or her stuff out there.
I like the fact that Flynn will be written primarily in Go. That should mean very little overhead for this PaaS. I wonder if using Heroku buildpacks is a good idea, though. Something that can more fully take advantage of Docker layers, and in some cases APT packages for language runtimes, would be better IMO.
"Unlike existing open source PaaS products, Flynn focuses on providing a set of modular components that can be replaced and reused." I wonder if there is anyone here who works on CloudFoundry or OpenShift and could comment on this, or comment on the proposed capabilities of Flynn ( https://github.com/flynn/flynn-spec ) compared to the capabilities of their systems.
They actually don't use LXC though and implement resource control with Cgroups. That said, Cloud Foundry is extremely difficult to get setup and running in my experience (even with the v2.0 recently released). It sounds like one big differentiating factor is that Flynn would have fewer moving pieces (Cloud Foundry is at least: BOSH, Warden, VCAP?, CF itself, etc.).
I'm curious what type of deployment APIs people want. It is the docker rest API + git push for your own code? Should we be using heroku APIs? Are we going to invent something new like OpenStack did?
I'm curious what type of deployment APIs people want. It is the docker rest API + git push for your own code? Should we be using heroku APIs? Are we going to invent something new like OpenStack did?
I know why you're asking. :D