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

41–50 of 154 posts

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#41

Post by api »

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?

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#42

Post by tstyle »

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.

What does life cycle orchestration mean?

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#43

Post by JeremyNT »

acdha wrote: post #39
candiddevmike wrote: post #26

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.

> 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.

The parent's point though is that this isn't the space IBM wants to be in. They're in the business of selling high margin, enterprise-y stuff that includes all the bells and whistles, so there's no reason for them to gobble up something like Rancher (RHAT's OpenShift solution is what they want to be selling already).

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#44

Post by mugsie »

tstyle wrote: post #42
mugsie wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does life cycle orchestration mean?

Replacing nodes, helping repairing broken things, upgrading the control plane, upgrading etcd etc.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#46

Post by lambdasquirrel »

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.

Yeah I would say similarly. My team is working with Rancher and found their permissions management to be a solid selling point, among other things. And you can terraform 99% of the things you need.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#47

Post by perlgeek »

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 enough with Rancher to tell you why those chose exactly them, but they had to do something.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#48

Post by vorpalhex »

zumachase wrote: post #37
bratao wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We're in the same camp with a cluster ~2x as large for Squawk[1] and it would cost us many multiples in the cloud (excluding our TURN relays which aren't k8s). However, the one killer feature that the cloud still has over self hosted is the state layer. There is nothing that comes close to the turn key, highly available, point in time recoverable database offerings from the cloud providers. We're running Spilo/Patron…

Why did you keep your TURN relays out of k8s?

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#49

Post by doteka »

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?

Eh, I’d say k8s with the help of Helm is about as simple as it can get to deploy and manage large clusters of networked applications. The equivalent done using e.g. Ansible playbooks would be far more complex.

If the complexity seems too much, it’s probably a sign you don’t need k8s.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#50

Post by johannes1234321 »

shagie wrote: post #36
candiddevmike wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It wouldn't be Red Hat as such... it would have been IBM. And the same question can be asked there with IBM Cloud Private and the UbranCode suite. Look at it from IBM's perspective - battling business units are good and one of them will certainly be the best.

... and a potential competitor is no more
Post reply on HN