App Container and Docker
coreos.com
App Container and Docker
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: App Container and Docker
#2> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs).
I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
Re: App Container and Docker
#3> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
I agree, I think it would be much better for everyone if the two container specs merged.
However, after reading "This is a simple functional PR..." in the blog post, I was surprised to see the PR adds over 38k lines of code. Seems like that will take a while to review.
Re: App Container and Docker
#4> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
Same here. It is a pretty huge PR though, without having gone through the usual design proposal process (i.e., https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md...).
Re: App Container and Docker
#5> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
I agree, I think it would be much better for everyone if the two container specs merged. However, after reading "This is a simple functional PR..." in the blog post, I was surprised to see the PR adds over 38k lines of code. Seems like that will take a while to review.
Most of those lines added are appc getting vendorized
Re: App Container and Docker
#6> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
I agree, I think it would be much better for everyone if the two container specs merged. However, after reading "This is a simple functional PR..." in the blog post, I was surprised to see the PR adds over 38k lines of code. Seems like that will take a while to review.
Most of those lines added are appc getting vendorized
Re: App Container and Docker
#7> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
Same here. It is a pretty huge PR though, without having gone through the usual design proposal process (i.e., https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md... ).
We wrote a proposal along with the PR: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10777
Adding a PR with working code was simply to show that adding this feature is something that is possible. It is OK if nothing from this implementation gets merged.
Re: App Container and Docker
#8> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
> There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
Gained by who though? These are for-profit enterprises and there are real-money gains involved in controlling the spec. For better or worse, CoreOS controls the App Container spec and make no mistake that the primary reason they want it in Docker is because it benefits them. This of course does not exclude the possibility that users benefit.
Still, I'm of the opinion that all of this fighting behind the scenes (which, if you've been paying attention, this is) is kind of bad for everyone and a waste of resources.
Re: App Container and Docker
#9> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.
> There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness. Gained by who though? These are for-profit enterprises and there are real-money gains involved in controlling the spec. For better or worse, CoreOS controls the App Container spec and make no mistake that the primary reason they want it in Docker is because it benefits them. This of course does not exclude t…
Competition is benefitting users and producing some relative waste of resources on each company. We are benefitting because at the end of the day the container world will be more open.
But I think that this VC-backed model might not be beneficial for OS as a business in the mid-long term. The race to $0 is greatly accelerated.
Re: App Container and Docker
#10little bit of snark: wasn't Docker "fundamentally flawed"? If that was really the premise to launch Rocket why bother with this humongous PR?
Don't get me wrong, I totally see how this is good for Rocket, just be honest and admit the "fundamentally flawed" argument was mainly smoke and mirrors to justify a defensive-offensive move by a VC-backed, for-profit company launched against another VC-backed, for-profit company.
Again nothing wrong with that, it's business and in fact a good move but in my eyes CoreOS lost quite some trust when they tried to potray Rocket as a selfless act of kindness towards the community that needed to be saved.