Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 154 posts

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#101

Post by wwright »

lproven wrote: post #31
candiddevmike wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Red Hat (who created OpenShift) want to buy an inferior competitor?

You may well ask, but you are far, far too late. Red Hat already bought CoreOS in January 2018, some 18 months before IBM bought Red Hat. The question would have been more relevant to either of those.

CoreOS was not a direct competitor to RHEL, it was intended to be a "next-gen" rearchitecture of the OS. No one was going to seriously consider using one in place of the other; if you were considering CoreOS, then RHEL was already off the table.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#102

Post by wwright »

api wrote: post #41
leonardteo wrote: post #3

Well congrats to the team for the exit. But I am really hoping that this will continue the great momentum that Rancher has. I've come to quite enjoy Rancher products. I think the work they are doing is fantastic and lowering the bar for entry into Kubernetes, especially for on-prem/bare metal. Just deployed 4 production RKE clusters on bare metal and also using K3S.

One thing that continuously irks me about K8S is that the bar is so high. Does it really need to be so complex? Does it really need so much mandatory complexity? Is that complexity needed or do more complex things actually tend to win in certain markets because nerds like knobs?

My experience with it has always been that it is delightfully simple for the task at hand. There's a wide surface area because it covers a wide problem space (distributed computing), but any individual task has always felt simple and very thoughtfully considered for me.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#103

Post by ojhughes »

api wrote: post #41
leonardteo wrote: post #3

Well congrats to the team for the exit. But I am really hoping that this will continue the great momentum that Rancher has. I've come to quite enjoy Rancher products. I think the work they are doing is fantastic and lowering the bar for entry into Kubernetes, especially for on-prem/bare metal. Just deployed 4 production RKE clusters on bare metal and also using K3S.

One thing that continuously irks me about K8S is that the bar is so high. Does it really need to be so complex? Does it really need so much mandatory complexity? Is that complexity needed or do more complex things actually tend to win in certain markets because nerds like knobs?

Distributed cloud computing is complex, k8s provides a solid abstraction based on decoupled reconciliation loops that work together in a common control plane. One of the most compelling facets of k8s is this declarative and extensible architecture.

The collaboration between Service -> Deployment -> ReplicaSet -> Pod -> Container is a great example of how these reconcilers work together.

Yes, it has a lot of knobs and dials but you don't need to understand them to get going. Just pick up something like skaffold.dev and you can be productive very quickly

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#104

Post by type0 »

wwright wrote: post #101
lproven wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may well ask, but you are far, far too late. Red Hat already bought CoreOS in January 2018, some 18 months before IBM bought Red Hat. The question would have been more relevant to either of those.

CoreOS was not a direct competitor to RHEL, it was intended to be a "next-gen" rearchitecture of the OS. No one was going to seriously consider using one in place of the other; if you were considering CoreOS, then RHEL was already off the table.

It replaced Project Atomic for them, some parts from atomic ended up in core os though.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#105

Post by type0 »

perlgeek wrote: post #47
omginternets wrote: post #11

I really liked the idea or RancherOS, but somehow it never quite lived up to its promise. In particular, the need to distinguish between root and non-root containers was surprisingly confusing in practice. It effectively broke the promise of “just worry about docker”. Has anyone here adopted it over the long term? What made it stick? Any ideas why SUSE would need/want this?

I think everyone and their dog is realizing that there isn't all that much money in the traditional OS business anymore, and are betting on cloud platforms of one kind or another. Redhat invested quite a bit into openshift, IBM bought them (and mentioned Redhat's cloud strategy in the announcement as one of the major reasons). Microsoft is doubling down on Azure, now SUSE wants a piece of the pie. I'm not familiar en…

> I think everyone and their dog is realizing that there isn't all that much money in the traditional OS business anymore

I wish my dog was as smart as yours, he continues to pay for windos and runs IE since no one on the internet knows he's a dog

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#106

Post by Keyframe »

bratao wrote: post #33
leonardteo wrote: post #3

Well congrats to the team for the exit. But I am really hoping that this will continue the great momentum that Rancher has. I've come to quite enjoy Rancher products. I think the work they are doing is fantastic and lowering the bar for entry into Kubernetes, especially for on-prem/bare metal. Just deployed 4 production RKE clusters on bare metal and also using K3S.

One more good experience. I created an cluster of dedicated servers ( 64 cores, 6TB of SSD storage and 256 GB of RAM, 1 GPU) using Rancher, for about 250 Euros/Month. This would cost at least 2k in a cloud such as AWS. There is a post about how I did with persistent storage here ( https://medium.com/@bratao/state-of-persistent-storage-in-k8... ) It really transformed my company DevOps. I´m VERY happy. If you can, use…

Where did you rent dedicated servers?

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#107

Post by techntoke »

leonardteo wrote: post #16
techntoke wrote: post #5

Makes a lot of sense to sell now since Rancher doesn't offer a lot of value anymore compared to vanilla Kubernetes and a few Helm charts.

How are you using vanilla Kubernetes? I've tried provisioning vanilla K8s on bare metal clusters and I found it to be pure PITA, even with Kubespray. Rancher's RKE is the first installer I've come across that "just works". Run rke up against a cluster.yml and within minutes you have a HA cluster with ingress ready to rock. K3S is also looking quite good. In contrast I've spent days staring down the abyss of vanilla K…

Kubeadm is the "official" and certified tool, not Kubespray. It is easily scripted as well. If you're used to graphical installers though and don't like automation then by all means continue to use Rancher.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#108

Post by techntoke »

caiobegotti wrote: post #25
techntoke wrote: post #5

Makes a lot of sense to sell now since Rancher doesn't offer a lot of value anymore compared to vanilla Kubernetes and a few Helm charts.

Over half a billion of USD looks like real value to me, I wish I could make that much with vanilla Kubernetes and Helm charts. Let's be respectful for Rancher's fantastic exit.

They recently when through a Series D round for $75 million, but yet you believe they have half a billion in the bank? They were on their last leg begging for seed money to keep them afloat.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#109

Post by techntoke »

mugsie wrote: post #29
techntoke wrote: post #5

Makes a lot of sense to sell now since Rancher doesn't offer a lot of value anymore compared to vanilla Kubernetes and a few Helm charts.

The real value is the Install / Life Cycle orchestration - vanilla K8S has really marked that firmly as "not their problem" - which is the correct thing for them to do.

You clearly haven't used or heard of kubeadm, which is a certified installer and lifecycle tool from CNCF.
Post reply on HN