Kubernetes Founders Launched Startup Heptio to Bring Containers to Enterprise • Hacker News Board

Re: Kubernetes Founders Launched Startup Heptio to Bring Containers to Enterprise

#71

Post by hueving » Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 5:07 AM UTC

treffer wrote: post #13

hueving wrote: post #2

And it begins. The birth of a company with a direct conflict of interest in making Kubernetes so simple to use/administer that you don't need to pay another company for 'enterprise support'. This happens quite frequently with open source infrastructure. Keep an eye on them to push back against improvements that directly conflict with their company's "enterprise sauce".

1. There is already a company doing that, among other things: CoreOS 2. There is usually not a "natural" conflict for companies that started out of open source projects 3. A full kubernetes deploy is already hard I'm actually quite happy that we will now see Heptio and CoreOS pushing for boxed kubernetes deploys. Multiple entities pushing an open source core is usually a good thing.

>Multiple entities pushing an open source core is usually a good thing

No, it's not that cut and dry. Depending on their product, they end up pushing the core to be more pluggable and extensible to make it work better with their product and have places to add secret sauce.

Any company that sells support benefits from more complexity because they compete by gaining expertise. Any company that makes a product for it benefits from fewer features in the open source version.

Re: Kubernetes Founders Launched Startup Heptio to Bring Containers to Enterprise

#72

Post by mhausenblas » Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 9:54 AM UTC

aegdafsg wrote: post #49

Somewhat off topic, but how do I pronounce your name? Hep-tee-oh? The hep part is reminding me of hepatitis right now.

Suggest you listen to this for the pronunciation: https://youtu.be/5Q4huiDcNSs?t=3m23s (it doesn't get more authoritative than that I suppose).

Re: Kubernetes Founders Launched Startup Heptio to Bring Containers to Enterprise

#73

Post by __monadic » Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 11:35 AM UTC

mugsie wrote: post #60

cmcluck wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[This is Craig -- CEO of this new venture, co-founder of K8s (with Joe and Brendan), and person who started CNCF (with Jim Zemlin, and a bunch of community wonks from big tech)] It is a funny you say this. I spent a lot of time looking around the community at what existed before starting CNCF, and agonized over this. We needed to take K8s to foundation so that it wouldn't be a 'Google project'. Google was actually th…

So, also being a PTL in OpenStack I would say that the foundation design is very similar to the OpenStack one. 1 - the openstack board has 0 technical input to projects - the way to get things done in OpenStack is still to throw developers at it. This does somewhat push the balance of power to larger companies - they have the money to employ developers. 2 - we have "community directors" who are elected by the people…

"how are the end user groups requirements put forward? what mechanisms is there to ensure developers work on the defined priorities?" --> projects are run by their leads, they are not told what to work on. In this sense, CNCF operates more like IETF/ASF but with (arguably) less intrusive governance.

The underlying idea here is that a well-run open source project gets plenty of strong direction from actual users, who must be interacted with directly.

There is a still-forming End User Board designed to create a strong forum for some types of User-Project discussion. But overall CNCF will lean towards "voluntary" and not "mandatory" requirements.

Re: Kubernetes Founders Launched Startup Heptio to Bring Containers to Enterprise

#74

Post by __monadic » Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 11:36 AM UTC

mugsie wrote: post #64

__monadic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm alexis richardson and chair of the TOC for CNCF. The answer is YES we allow competing implementations.

Cool. Do you ask projects to support all the implementations or just choose one?

Projects can do what they like. We believe that users, communities, market pressures, and so on, will drive good outcomes here. For example to date, all projects have worked to interoperate of their own volition. No committees were formed to achieve this.

Re: Kubernetes Founders Launched Startup Heptio to Bring Containers to Enterprise

#75

Post by __monadic » Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 11:40 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #69

__monadic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm alexis richardson and chair of the TOC for CNCF. The answer is YES we allow competing implementations.

Do you allow competing APIs for the same service? If not, how is that any different from OpenStack? If so, how do you address the issue of fragmentation across deployments?

Yes we do allow competing APIs.

You said it yourself in another comment on here: "It's never blatant, it's always calls for seemingly good things like extra pluggable points to make sure we don't favor particular solutions. Then it's making sure that any decision is brought to a huge vote by a giant committee that spends weeks arguing about if it's something they should even decide on, etc."

This kind of premature generalisation by committee is what has pulled OpenStack down; a situation from which it is now apparently recovering. CNCF seeks to avoid this, by encouraging projects towards interop but not in mandated ways.

Re: Kubernetes Founders Launched Startup Heptio to Bring Containers to Enterprise

#76

Post by __monadic » Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

__monadic wrote: post #62

mugsie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in the CNCF, are competing implementations allowed / encouraged? For me that would have repercussions for what other tech a CNCF project supports (e.g. is all stats monitoring based on Prometheus, or can 2 projects in the CNCF support different technologies)

Hi, I'm alexis richardson and chair of the TOC for CNCF. The answer is YES we allow competing implementations.

to elaborate for @hueving @mugsie et al., consider that OpenStack is organised around Nova, the scheduler++ that is at the heart of any OpenStack deployment. If the CNCF was "like OpenStack" then it could mandate that all projects are organised around Kubernetes, playing a role analogous to Nova. But we didn't want to be solely a "Kubernetes foundation". The market is early stage, and there are other valid approaches to orchestration, including Docker Swarmkit, Hashicorp Nomad, Mesos & DCOS templates like Marathon, and others. So, we need a different approach.

Of course there are people who want a KubeStack that is like OpenStack, for better or worse. That's fine too! We just don't want that to be the ONLY choice for customers.