Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
blog.docker.com
Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#2This comes off as overly defensive and entitled, like "we brought you containers and you stab us in the back!?"
I don't see why they need to view this as an opportunity to fight back and criticize another app container system, rather than enthusiasm about the continued spread of containers and expressing a desire to cooperate on building open, interoperable standards.
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#3> These capabilities should not be monolithic. Individuals should be free to use, modify, or not use these services and their higher level APIs.
Let's hope they mean it.
> 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.
Interesting way to end their reply to the announcement of Rocket. The whole post reads like a typical PR response without real arguments. I'm looking forward to their followup post.
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#4"We of docker, advise docker. "
Despite their arguments being valid or not, I cannot help but hearing this message over and over in my head.
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#5> 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's he talking about regarding the timing of the announcement?
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#6> 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's he talking about regarding the timing of the announcement?
DockerCon is this week.
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#7How can Docker claim that Rocket does not welcome the notion of portability? Portability and composability are at the center of the Rocket announcement.
From the Rocket announcement:
simple and open specifications for a portable container format...
fill the gap for companies that just want a way to securely and
portably run a container
these vendors want to create orchestration solution (sic) that are
tailored for their particular infrastructure or offerings, and do
not welcome the notion of portability
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#8Why the heck are they being so defensive? I honestly don't get it.
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#9Why the heck are they being so defensive? I honestly don't get it.
It's a strategy lifted directly from a page of "Producing OSS" about forking (in this case not a fork, but a competitor project, and still just as applicable): http://producingoss.com/en/forks.html
Re: Initial thoughts on the Rocket announcement
#10For a post that according to the title is about Rocket, it's interesting that Rocket (and CoreOS) aren't even mentioned until paragraph 12. The previous 11 paragraphs are all "blah blah blah Docker". Seems like Docker is pretty full of themselves.