31–40 of 154 posts
I'm very glad that SUSE bought it and not Red Hat (or Microsoft). This might give SUSE more inroads to the North American market, considering it's largely a European player at this point.
Why would Red Hat (who created OpenShift) want to buy an inferior competitor?
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.
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?
Not sure about RancherOS and how much it factored into the sale. It could end up merged/transitioned into some Suse-container OS offering The enterprise K8S business is compelling, especially all the shops using metal/on-prem. I settled on using Rancher and RKE for production clusters just because it was the simplest way to get HA clusters up within minutes without a PhD in K8S. But I think a lot of the work they are…
https://www.suse.com/products/caas-platform/
(Source: I worked on the documentation for v3.)
The partly-SUSE-sponsored openSUSE Project also has a container-centric distro, Kubic MicroOS:
So it is already active in this area, and yes, I agree, there's a good chance that RancherOS will end up merging or even replacing this.
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.
It really transformed my company DevOps. I´m VERY happy. If you can, use Rancher. It is just perfect!
I'm very glad that SUSE bought it and not Red Hat (or Microsoft). This might give SUSE more inroads to the North American market, considering it's largely a European player at this point.
Why would Red Hat (who created OpenShift) want to buy an inferior competitor?
But switch "inferior" to "superior" and your question makes sense. Red Hat's products mostly suck balls. I can't think of a single one which has been an enjoyable experience to use. People paid for them because they were the IBM of the Linux world.... And now they're the Linux of the IBM world.
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…
I'm very glad that SUSE bought it and not Red Hat (or Microsoft). This might give SUSE more inroads to the North American market, considering it's largely a European player at this point.
Why would Red Hat (who created OpenShift) want to buy an inferior competitor?
Look at it from IBM's perspective - battling business units are good and one of them will certainly be the best.
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…
[1] Shamless plug Squawk: Walkie Talkie for Teams - https://www.squawk.to
_EDIT_ I've just read your blog post. We went the other direction and have used the local storage provisioner to create PVCs directly on host storage, and push the replication to the application layer. We run postgres and redis (keydb) with 3 replicas each with at least one in sync replication (where supported) and shipping postgres wal logs to S3 every 10 seconds.
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?
Not sure about RancherOS and how much it factored into the sale. It could end up merged/transitioned into some Suse-container OS offering The enterprise K8S business is compelling, especially all the shops using metal/on-prem. I settled on using Rancher and RKE for production clusters just because it was the simplest way to get HA clusters up within minutes without a PhD in K8S. But I think a lot of the work they are…
I'm very glad that SUSE bought it and not Red Hat (or Microsoft). This might give SUSE more inroads to the North American market, considering it's largely a European player at this point.
Why would Red Hat (who created OpenShift) want to buy an inferior competitor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Red Hat (who created OpenShift) want to buy an inferior competitor?
OpenShift is expensive and requires a significant O&M investment. If you want to use standard tools it’d be nice to have a managed standard Kubernetes option without paying for a lot of complexity your teams don’t want.