CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket • Hacker News Board

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#191

Post by _mikz » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 12:52 AM UTC

I hope Rocket will be more stability oriented than Docker. After runing few hundreds containers on machine for almost a year know I would not chosen Docker again. Docker has stability issues all the time and it is taking months to solve them.

Offering strace logs to developers without feedback and finally it was fixed by someone from outside the project. https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/7348

Allocating ports pops now and then every odd docker release: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8714

Even stupidest things like allowing to have more dockerfiles in one folder. https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/2112

Docker has own agenda and it is clearer and clearer.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#192

Post by losnggenration » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:03 AM UTC

pquerna wrote: post #111

[deleted] wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

personally, I think the long term value of Rocket is not about Rocket -- its about the ACI specification for the formats of containers. Right now I'm already taking a Dockerfile, exporting it to a tar, and then running systemd-nspawn -- I love Dockerfiles, I love being able to grab a postgres server and get it up quickly from Docker Hub, but I didn't need or want the rest of docker. If both Docker and Rocket support…

I think it's called OVF[1]. It's just not as widely supported as it probably should be.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Virtualization_Format

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#193

Post by Aeoxic » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:04 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #182

efuquen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really bugging me people are using the word "fork". This is not a fork, it's a competing container format, there isn't any docker code in Rocket AFAIK. Even @shykes called it a fork in a comment, it's not somebody taking your code and doing something different with it, they are doing their own implementation. Ideas aren't "forked", code is. As to everything else, I manage CoreOS clusters with docker for now, and…

IMO rewriting something from scratch is like forking but worse because it's impossible to merge later. And Rocket is definitely forking the Docker community.

That's great, except forks can be merged later.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#194

Post by nsmartt » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:12 AM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #187

nsmartt wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can open source software be in competition with anything? Market share is power. Popular open-source projects can, and do, shape the industry. If you believe your trajectory is the right one for the industry, competition matters a lot. As an example, Mozilla's Firefox was created to compete with Internet Explorer. It succeeded, and now Mozilla is working to defend the open web, so market share is still crucial…

I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Mozilla's Firefox was originally called Phoenix, and it was created because Mozilla the browser was a dog-slow encumbered monstrosity of Netscape's attempt to create an all-in-one solution for the web. Firefox was essentially competing with Mozilla Suite, but it wasn't so much "competing" as filling a necessary role: a browser that didn't suck. Mozilla Suite was also not created to com…

Huh. I was basing my comment on the knowledge that Mozilla feared IE would become the way to browse the web. I should have double checked.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#195

Post by pquerna » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:12 AM UTC

losnggenration wrote: post #192

pquerna wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

personally, I think the long term value of Rocket is not about Rocket -- its about the ACI specification for the formats of containers. Right now I'm already taking a Dockerfile, exporting it to a tar, and then running systemd-nspawn -- I love Dockerfiles, I love being able to grab a postgres server and get it up quickly from Docker Hub, but I didn't need or want the rest of docker. If both Docker and Rocket support…

I think it's called OVF[1]. It's just not as widely supported as it probably should be. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Virtualization_Format

In theory, OVF is the 'answer' for Virtual Machines -- but its failure has been in adoption -- if you can't get Amazon and OpenStack to adopt it, what's the point?

Before Rocket/ACI there wasn't even a contender for Containers. Now there is a published spec. Start there. Iterate.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#196

Post by girvo » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:22 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #182

efuquen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really bugging me people are using the word "fork". This is not a fork, it's a competing container format, there isn't any docker code in Rocket AFAIK. Even @shykes called it a fork in a comment, it's not somebody taking your code and doing something different with it, they are doing their own implementation. Ideas aren't "forked", code is. As to everything else, I manage CoreOS clusters with docker for now, and…

IMO rewriting something from scratch is like forking but worse because it's impossible to merge later. And Rocket is definitely forking the Docker community.

If it can't be merged, it's not a fork, that's the key part of forks (well, not entirely, but the lack of shared code means it's not a fork by my definition).

That said, you're on point: this is forking the community. A hard fork, too.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#197

Post by ash » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:24 AM UTC

ecnahc515 wrote: post #183

digitalzombie wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please no json file, use yaml or have an option for yaml T___T. The curly braces and brackets can get ugly when nested. edit: It may seems stupid but when you're on the terminal with vim and the directory path is long in some nested object/array. Things is really hard to parse out with your eyes.

I think using JSON is a solid choice. You can easily make yaml to JSON translators for this purpose.

JSON is okay, but I hope TOML will gain traction soon. Because comments. And trailing commas. Rust Crate is already using TOML for package metadata.

https://github.com/toml-lang/toml

http://doc.crates.io/manifest.html

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#198

Post by schuman » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:28 AM UTC

shykes wrote: post #115

pquerna wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

personally, I think the long term value of Rocket is not about Rocket -- its about the ACI specification for the formats of containers. Right now I'm already taking a Dockerfile, exporting it to a tar, and then running systemd-nspawn -- I love Dockerfiles, I love being able to grab a postgres server and get it up quickly from Docker Hub, but I didn't need or want the rest of docker. If both Docker and Rocket support…

Now we're talking. Yes, I agree having a better spec for the underlying image format would be nice. In fact I also agree you should be able to use the Docker runtime without its packaging system, and vice-versa. However I think it makes more sense to do this on the actual Docker format which everyone already uses... That way you get the benefit of increased openness without the drawback of fragmentation. I have the i…

Yes, of course you think it would be better if everybody used your solution.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#199

Post by degio » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:30 AM UTC

I found reading these comments very interesting.

From one point of view, I'm thinking "why did coreos need to be so aggressive?", and "boy, what a gift Solomon Hykes did to coreos by mismanaging this thing so badly", and "man, all of these guys look sort of immature to me".

From the other point of view, I'm respecting docker and coreos even more, as open source projects and as a companies, because it feels like there are real people behind them.

If this is the new wave of enterprise companies, I really like it. These are people like us, that engage with us and sometimes screw up, without hiding it. They are doing great things, and the fact that they are a bit immature is actually great.

I'm an entrepreneur myself, I've done enterprise software my whole life, and I always thought it's a shame that companies in this space are so distant from their users and have such little humanity.

Looks like things are changing.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#200

Post by gexla » Tue, Dec 02, 2014, 1:31 AM UTC

That's open source. The early implementation of an idea is broken. Someone creates an alternative which fixes the problems. The alternative often doesn't gain the same traction and the original continues as the broken dominant implementation. But the alternative is also broken, but maybe in different ways. As design decisions pile on, the broken spreads. In the end, we again learn that software sucks. It will always suck. For people who don't like reinventing the wheel (or relearning the reinvention) stick with the "good enough" and focus on building cool stuff.