3 ms·
That sounds like a bad idea to me. I do agree that Docker rushed things a bit with Swarm (on the orchestration front) but I think that they're doing an excellen
by jondubois 10y ago
That sounds like a bad idea to me. I do agree that Docker rushed things a bit with Swarm (on the orchestration front) but I think that they're doing an excellent job with the containers themselves.
I don't think a fork will help - I think a fork would make sense if there were concerns about Docker's level of 'openness' but I think that's not the problem here.
Forking/duplicating a technology whose main premise is being "a single consistent environment for running apps" sounds like a contradiction to me.
- sjellis 10y agoThere are concerns at every level about the decisions coming from Docker, Inc. and there have been consistent issues for a long time. Swarm is just the latest issue, and the arguably the worst, since none of the key decisions are defensible - Why is it there in the core product? Why was it added in a point release? Why was it included at all when it is clearly not stable? Did any major contributor outside Docker, Inc. have any input into this? Ultimately, forking is what happens when the contributors can't work with the maintainer, and it seems pretty clear that Docker, Inc. can't act as responsible maintainers.
- PaulKeeble 10y agoI don't feel like that. The Windows release can cause the machine to permenantly loose networking and on Ubuntu 15 the service is causing ridiculous CPU usage on some machines and locking up. Something is broken in the recent releases of the basic engine, its not stable.