I'd like to highlight the following analysis:
"Why Docker and CoreOS’ split was predictable" http://bit.ly/1zMLYSt
CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
281–290 of 295 posts
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#282Hi, I created Docker. I have exactly 3 things to say: 1) Competition is always good. Lxc brought competition to openvz and vserver. Docker brought competition to lxc. And now tools like lxd, rocket and nspawn are bringing competition to Docker. In response Docker is forced to up its game and earn its right to be the dominant tool. This is a good thing. 2) "disappointed" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about…
We compiled our (Codenvy's) thoughts on the Rocket vs. Docker perspectives and posted it on a blog post today. http://blog.codenvy.com/rocket-rocket-docker/
Our net conclusion is that this is good for the industry as competition induces everyone to work a little bit harder. We anticipate that the end game is that advancements and concepts suggested by Rocket are likely not to make it stand alone, or with very broad adoption, but that there will be enough interest & momentum that we eventually see some sort of alignment between Docker and Rocket. It's what would be in the best interests of all involved, in the end. Seems like the projects could eventually merge.
While some of the tone of the initial announcement had political overtures, which were further amplified by Pivotal (James Watters certainly didn't mind fanning flames), what this could indicate is that there were deep ideological divisions in thought within the Docker community. And instead of the parties finding common ground, the CoreOS team needed to create a new project with PR to gain attention to their ideas. That shows commitment and to a degree, high certainty, in their beliefs. Sometimes it requires one person taking on massive risks to fully convey the power of their position.
But there have been examples in the past of splinters that eventually get mended back into the fold. This wasn't a full fork, this was an entirely new approach. The foundations of what they are proposing are nice gap fills for Docker. So there are many more ways for alignment here than for division.
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and Pivotal (CloudFoundry) has posted a fairly supportive blog entry on Rocket. So it's not just CoreOS "making a play". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683540
Cloud Foundry also quietly forked Docker with Warden/Diego (edit: I meant Garden, thanks kapilvt), although in that case they remained compatible with Docker images.
Your edit is incomplete. Warden predates Docker and is an independent container system. Diego is a new controller/staging/allocating/health system for part of Cloud Foundry, which is a complete PaaS, of which Warden is a low-level component.
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
I second that. At the begining Docker people were mentioning adding FreeBSD Jails support, what seemed to me an awesome thing, a platform independent containerization middleware, but recently they just seemt to forget about it and they're doing only linux-centric things - what a shame.
Yes, but the Docker Remote API allows for a great deal of implementation freedom -- including running on a different OS substrate. We're doing this with sdc-docker[1] to run Docker on top of SmartOS and in a SmartOS container, and the Docker folks have been incredibly supportive. Despite the rhetoric, Rocket appears to be much more bound to the OS platform than Docker -- and given @philips' comment that "part of the…
Have you ever considered doing a Warden backend for SmartOS? It'd make Cloud Foundry run out of the box, as I understand it.
Disclaimer: while I work on CF, I'm not that close to the Warden nitty-gritty.
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#285>>>
While we disagree with some of the arguments and questionable rhetoric and timing of the Rocket announcement, we hope that we can all continue to be guided by what is best for users and developers.
>>>
What does "timing" of the announcement mean?
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#286>>> While we disagree with some of the arguments and questionable rhetoric and timing of the Rocket announcement, we hope that we can all continue to be guided by what is best for users and developers. >>> What does "timing" of the announcement mean?
It's a well-orchestrated PR effort just days before Dockercon. The goal is to get it into the press short-term memory, so they mention on their own in Docker's own press announcements later in the week. It's corporate PR 101 - pretty aggressive but effective.
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are not "locked in" by Docker Inc if you are using Docker just like you aren't locked in by Github if you are using git. A much more accurate analogy would be you are not "locked in" by Oracle if you are using MySQL . It may be true today, but no guarantee that will always be the case.
Despite the attempt of some to move goal posts, you're still guaranteed that you won't be locked in by Oracle even tomorrow. You still have the source code for the version you're running right?
" You still have the source code for the version you're running right?"
Yes but I don't have the skill, time, resources and will to maintain MySQL if and when Oracle goes evil (I mean more evil than now ;-)
This is why I choose carefully what companies / groups I depend on for my future computing needs.
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#288Hi, I created Docker. I have exactly 3 things to say: 1) Competition is always good. Lxc brought competition to openvz and vserver. Docker brought competition to lxc. And now tools like lxd, rocket and nspawn are bringing competition to Docker. In response Docker is forced to up its game and earn its right to be the dominant tool. This is a good thing. 2) "disappointed" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about…
I don't read any mud-slinging in this post at all. What I read from it is someone (or a group of people) disappointed by Docker's current path and wanting to offer an alternative.
Docker's received a lot of funding, and so it has an interest in building a whole platform. I won't say whether that is "right" or "wrong," but it may pollute the original, simple container strategy. The goal of this seems to be to offer a pure alternative. No mud-slinging there - just a different goal than what Docker has become today.
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#289Hi, I created Docker. I have exactly 3 things to say: 1) Competition is always good. Lxc brought competition to openvz and vserver. Docker brought competition to lxc. And now tools like lxd, rocket and nspawn are bringing competition to Docker. In response Docker is forced to up its game and earn its right to be the dominant tool. This is a good thing. 2) "disappointed" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about…
And then?
Re: CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't disagree, but OVF is an ANSI[1] & ISO[2] standard. Like you said, Amazon & OpenStack have chosen not to adopt it. [1] http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS+469-20... [2] http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_det...
Just goes to show that adopted+working is more important and useful than a published spec.