Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker • Hacker News Board

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#141

Post by mwcampbell » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 1:42 PM UTC

girvo wrote: post #133

mwcampbell wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month?

Me, for one. I CBF diddling around with firing up AMI's and dealing with everything myself anymore. A lot of developers are like that, too.

Is the convenience of not having to do the extra initial setup and occasional maintenance really worth the substantial markup every month?

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#142

Post by mwcampbell » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 1:45 PM UTC

andyhmltn wrote: post #136

mwcampbell wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month?

Who in their right mind would pay for a dedicated server monthly when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to buy an inhouse server and pay less than a quarter as much in the long run? You see where I'm trying to go with that?

Not quite. Buying server hardware requires a substantial up-front monetary commitment. Once we have a good self-hosted PaaS package like Flynn, setting up an instance on an IaaS provider should (in theory) require a very small amount of time.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#143

Post by danielsiders » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 1:54 PM UTC

lifty wrote: post #134

Titanous wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, Jeff Lindsay ( http://progrium.com ) is the other half of the team.

Tent and now Flynn. You are building some foundational pillars that have the potential to empower a lot of people. Great work!

thanks!

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#144

Post by girvo » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 2:02 PM UTC

mwcampbell wrote: post #141

girvo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me, for one. I CBF diddling around with firing up AMI's and dealing with everything myself anymore. A lot of developers are like that, too.

Is the convenience of not having to do the extra initial setup and occasional maintenance really worth the substantial markup every month ?

Yep. You are truly underestimating how lazy I (and others) can be. And besides, being able to have support to turn to is quite a bonus: I don't want to be the support guy for this sort of stuff.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#145

Post by markramm » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 4:48 PM UTC

lfauve wrote: post #131

jcastro wrote: post #86

This is great guys, good to see more people bringing PaaS-like workflow without the baggage. We've been working in this space with Juju ( http://juju.ubuntu.com ) but we're using standard LXC for containers. Using LXC allows us to support applications that run on multiple processes, and since Juju is also written in Go, It seems like it might be possible for us to work together in some interesting ways. We already ha…

Has the issue with juju on LXC not surviving reboots been fixed?

LXC support in the latest Go juju landed earlier this week, and reboot persistence landed yesterday. So, yes, but it's still very new.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#146

Post by markramm » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

girvo wrote: post #132

stevvooe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juju is a great project and you guys are way ahead of the game but the AGPL licensing is problematic for proprietary services built on that platform.

Do you mind explaining that? Would the fact that they use AGPL for Juju matter if you're not hacking on Juju itself? I don't see how it would be an issue, it wouldn't extend to the proprietary software you run on a Juju-setup service, would it? I could be completely wrong, mind you.

Yea, it's exactly like MongoDB which is also AGPL.

Using the database doesn't impose any restrictions on your software.

Even hacking on juju to add API'S you for your client software doesn't impose restrictions on the client -- it just means you are subject to the AGPL licence source distribution rules on the patched version of Juju.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#147

Post by slajax » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

coenhyde wrote: post #36

slajax wrote: post #14

So it's a git post-receive hook that parses a Procfile and starts your app?

It's probably a pre-receive hook. That's how Dokku works. It's easier to abort the deploy this way.

Oh really? I've always used post. Can you elaborate or link to something that exemplifies the pre method?

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#148

Post by lfauve » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 6:56 PM UTC

markramm wrote: post #145

lfauve wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has the issue with juju on LXC not surviving reboots been fixed?

LXC support in the latest Go juju landed earlier this week, and reboot persistence landed yesterday. So, yes, but it's still very new.

OK, thanks. This was a deal break for us a year ago. The issue was even partly solved and with a few hacks juju did survive reboots, but it was later on removed.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#149

Post by stevvooe » Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 8:38 PM UTC

girvo wrote: post #132

stevvooe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juju is a great project and you guys are way ahead of the game but the AGPL licensing is problematic for proprietary services built on that platform.

Do you mind explaining that? Would the fact that they use AGPL for Juju matter if you're not hacking on Juju itself? I don't see how it would be an issue, it wouldn't extend to the proprietary software you run on a Juju-setup service, would it? I could be completely wrong, mind you.

IADNAL, but its a matter of risk. If one uses juju in operations scripts to implement proprietary services, do you have to make those scripts available to end users? At what point does your software become "derivative" of juju? This interpretation definitely borders on FUD, buts its easier not to take the risk when other options are available.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#150

Post by js4all » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 6:27 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #132

stevvooe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juju is a great project and you guys are way ahead of the game but the AGPL licensing is problematic for proprietary services built on that platform.

Do you mind explaining that? Would the fact that they use AGPL for Juju matter if you're not hacking on Juju itself? I don't see how it would be an issue, it wouldn't extend to the proprietary software you run on a Juju-setup service, would it? I could be completely wrong, mind you.

GPL is viral and imposes restriction which you can't foresee. A recent example is the AppStore fiasco VLC had. It required a complete rewrite and additional development years to get it in the store just because the original code was GPL. Please think twice before using (A)GPL and make sure you have checked all consequences.