3 ms·

There was a good discussion last night at the SF Microservices meetup about how early we are with containerized applications. The company I work for, Giant Swar

There was a good discussion last night at the SF Microservices meetup about how early we are with containerized applications. The company I work for, Giant Swarm, provides a containerized stack solution and we run people through a short survey when they sign up for our shared cluster offering. The survey shows that about 15% of companies (at least for peeps showing up on our site) have some type of containerized application in production. That's not a big number. Yet. The problem being described in this issue is one person's experience with Docker, but I've heard similar stories from others about similar projects in the past. Looking at you, OpenStack. Yes, things are breaking fast with Docker - I've experienced them myself. Yes, new companies and offerings are joining the ecosystem daily - which can be maddenly confusing for users trying to understand the technologies. This creates a sense of instability when so much is going on at once. I think the problem is that, when new ways of doing compute things spin up, they become highly disruptive to both the people using older technologies AND the companies developing the new technologies. Given the new way of doing things usually gives an advantage to those using them, the challenge comes from trying to put those technologies into production before they are finished, all the while keeping an eye on shareholder value. I call this the "problem cloud". It's really a people problem though, so maybe it should be called "problem people". :)

timthelion 11y ago
This is especially complicated in an open source project like Docker. Docker seems to be locked between a rock and a hard place in that: a - They are post 1.0, and there is an expectation that they won't break compatibility. This has meant a real slow down in development, and it is now very hard to get a pull request through. b - Docker is totally imature and those pull requests are needed. It is lacking in basic functionality like the ability to mount and unmount volumes at run-time. It is also slow, and suffers from a codebase that was thrown together practially overnight. So it would actually be best if Docker Inc. went back to breaking things and getting things done. Unfortunately, what seems to be happening is that Docker is failing to not break things and at the same time they are still paralized. For subuser, there is yet a third problem. And that is that Docker is Docker Inc. And subuser being free software, it's not a nice feeling to know that my project is at the mercy of a single company.

timthelion 11y ago

This is especially complicated in an open source project like Docker. Docker seems to be locked between a rock and a hard place in that: a - They are post 1.0, and there is an expectation that they won't break compatibility. This has meant a real slow down in development, and it is now very hard to get a pull request through. b - Docker is totally imature and those pull requests are needed. It is lacking in basic functionality like the ability to mount and unmount volumes at run-time. It is also slow, and suffers from a codebase that was thrown together practially overnight. So it would actually be best if Docker Inc. went back to breaking things and getting things done. Unfortunately, what seems to be happening is that Docker is failing to not break things and at the same time they are still paralized. For subuser, there is yet a third problem. And that is that Docker is Docker Inc. And subuser being free software, it's not a nice feeling to know that my project is at the mercy of a single company.