Live data from Hacker News

CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

coreos.com

21–30 of 295 posts

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#22
post #12

This is how Linux fragments, and ultimately dies as the Linux we know. I'm not really making a value judgement, just an observation.

Fragments? Certainly. Dies? Linux has been fragmented from its inception. If you include the world's Android phones, Linux probably runs on more computers than any other kernel or OS. Rocket will not kill Linux, containers, or docker. In the worst case, it will kill CoreOS, and even that's unlikely.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#23
post #9

Interesting takeaways from the post: * Despite Brandon Philips (CoreOS CTO) serving on the Docker governance board, Docker has aggressively expanded their scope well beyond their original container manifesto. * CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." * CoreOS reaffirms their original operatin…

> CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." I wonder if that comes from the partnership with Microsoft.

Regardless of whether your comment was lightly sarcastic or not, I agree that the Docker VMWare[1] & Microsoft partnership announcements may have been conditional upon a committed Docker roadmap outlining some or all of the features that others (such as CoreOS) may feel should be broken out. Typically larger ecosystem players want to be assured that your offering will have a clearly defined role within their existing ecosystem that plays to your core brand and technical competency.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2014/08/25/vmware-gets-...

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#24
As a heavy user of CoreOS and docker, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

My problems with docker have been the security model, for which the only recourse I've had is to use the USER keyword in my Dockerfiles. Furthermore, networking has been a pain point, which I've had to resolve by using host networking to access interfaces.

Let's see how rocket deals with these issues and others. I pay for CoreOS support, so I'm glad to see that they're addressing this.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#25
Docker's main focus is to "get people agree on something". And they are doing great in getting traction and adoption. But if everyone starts to create their own flavor of containers, we still don't get portability across servers and clouds. It would be better IMHO if Rocket implements the Docker API, or if they collaborate together in creating a minimal standard. Then everyone would benefit. I'm really curious how Solomon will respond to this...

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#26

I have been concerned that Docker's scope was expanding too far for a while now, so I'm glad to see an alternative that might work appear on the horizon. That said, I am somewhat concerned that CoreOS has a suspiciously similar business model to where Docker would probably like to be. It's in a business's best interest, and exceedingly common practice, to "land and expand" with something clear and compelling, and fol…

I had the same initial reaction, but I think there's good reason to trust the CoreOS folks to remain faithful to the project's goals. Containerization (although foundational) is one part of CoreOS's platform. It's easy to see where the boundaries fall, e.g. I expect systemd and fleetd to keep their respective functionality and not overlap with Rocket.

It become pretty clear once dotCloud became Docker Inc. that they intended to capitalize on the "Docker" brand to sell an integrated orchestration platform. CoreOS already has enterprise customers for their operating system and related components. They seem like the perfect team to take this challenge on.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#27

Docker's main focus is to "get people agree on something". And they are doing great in getting traction and adoption. But if everyone starts to create their own flavor of containers, we still don't get portability across servers and clouds. It would be better IMHO if Rocket implements the Docker API, or if they collaborate together in creating a minimal standard. Then everyone would benefit. I'm really curious how So…

FWIW, part of the design difference is that rocket doesn't implement an API. When you do `rkt run` it is actually executing under that PID hierarchy; there is no rktd that forks the process.

This is a design goal so that you can launch a container under the control of your init system or other process management system.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#28
post #9

Interesting takeaways from the post: * Despite Brandon Philips (CoreOS CTO) serving on the Docker governance board, Docker has aggressively expanded their scope well beyond their original container manifesto. * CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." * CoreOS reaffirms their original operatin…

> CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." I wonder if that comes from the partnership with Microsoft.

Wow, that is a random jump of logic. Answer: no.

Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket

#29
post #9

Interesting takeaways from the post: * Despite Brandon Philips (CoreOS CTO) serving on the Docker governance board, Docker has aggressively expanded their scope well beyond their original container manifesto. * CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." * CoreOS reaffirms their original operatin…

> CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." I wonder if that comes from the partnership with Microsoft.

They raised $55 million [1], so you have to believe their ambitions are to extract as much rent from the container ecosystem as possible. That's not a bad thing, but it's behind a lot of their moves.

[1] http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker

Post reply on HN