18 ms·
Red Hat to Acquire CoreOS
- tomdec 9y ago"Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s content, the foundation of our application ecosystem will remain our only Linux offering. Whereas, some of the delivery mechanisms pioneered by Container Linux will be reviewed by a joint integration team and reconciled with Atomic." So long, Container Linux, we hardly knew ye... ?
- micah_chatt 9y agoWhat is the source? I didn't see that in the linked article.
- tomdec 9y agoFrom their FAQ: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos
- nine_k 9y agoIs the interesting part of Container Linux open-source? Can anyone fork it and build a similar offering, simpler than RHEL?
- fredland 9y agoLong live the Farm!
- arreyder 9y ago\o/
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- wyldfire 9y agoIt seems like early 2018 is rife with acquisitions and mergers. Was the recent tax law a factor? Seems like these acquisitions take so much time that it couldn't have been dependent on that. So why all this activity?
- nikanj 9y agoNew financial year, fresh budgets
- syvanen 9y agoExcept Red Hat is financially now in Q4.
- JosephRedfern 9y agoEnd of financial year... budgets to spend?
- andrewbinstock 9y agoUnlikely. Most of the acquiring companies, including Red Hat have fiscal years that don't end on Dec 31.
- jlgaddis 9y agoFTA: > ... fourth fiscal quarter or fiscal year ending Feb. 28, 2018.
- andrewbinstock 9y agoHuge changes in computing and technology, driven by the cloud in good part: big data, AI and machine learning, chatbots, and containers, microservices, etc. The major players all want a part of these so are acquiring innovators in each of these spaces. It's a great time to be a developer!
- spydum 9y agoM&A has been the strategy of just about all major companies for the last 18 months, and because of the lead time, I think 2018 is going to be even busier.
- gtirloni 9y agoThis makes sense. Red Hat has been investing in Project Atomic for a while now and CoreOS still seems like a better option, if you're looking for a container-only OS that has been battle tested. Additionally, both companies seem like good places to work, with leadership that's often praised and has the results to show. I'm happy for CoreOS on this one, they're joining a company that I admire. Looking forward to see how this will impact RHEL8.
- Avshalom 9y agoProbably rhel9. I have no professional insight into this but the historic timeline implies 8 will be out soon, I suspect they are just waiting for Wayland to get some where they feel comfortable with. Anything past Wayland is probably a 9 feature.
- bonzini 9y agoAtomic Host was introduced in RHEL7.2 if I remember correctly. There's a lot of room for introducing CoreOS technology before RHEL9, which would probably be 4-5 years from now. (disclaimer: working at Red Hat, though not on anything related to containers).
- digi_owl 9y agoInvesting is probably putting it mildly. The top contributor is directly on their payroll...
- robszumski 9y agoCoreOS product manager here. Container Linux will live on, beside Fedora and CentOS as other Linux projects with maintainers from Red Hat. Keep Kube'n and Docker'n per usual. More details here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/coreos-user/GR4YlF2c1dM https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/coreos-user/GR4YlF2c...
- syvanen 9y agoBlog post from Red Hat: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/coreos-bet https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/coreos-bet Red Hat FAQ: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos CoreOS Blog post: https://coreos.com/blog/coreos-agrees-to-join-red-hat/ https://coreos.com/blog/coreos-agrees-to-join-red-hat/ (Added FAQ and CoreOS links)
- jedberg 9y agoCongrats to Alex and his team! I've loved their technology since their alpha days. Glad to see it working out and hopefully getting into more hands with the acquisition.
- anubhavmishra 9y agoThis is great news! I am not sure what happens to tectonic? Is is going to be part of OpenShift?
- jkaplowitz 9y agoAs per the question in the FAQ about open sourcing CoreOS's technology, we can assume it's going to become open source, at least: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos It will probably continue to be available in some paid commercial offering with well defined releases and lifecycles, as well as a community-supported free-in-both-senses offering which moves faster. Red Hat repeatedly uses this model across their portfolio. Can't answer the OpenShift question - I have no inside info from either company. But open sourcing it is the bigger impact.
- anubhavmishra 9y agoThanks, I didn't see the FAQ link. Yea, let's see what happens with OpenShift.
- michaelsbradley 9y agoI suspect an announcement re: Docker's acquisition by a major tech player may follow closely on the heels of this news.
- iamdave 9y agoAmazon perhaps?
- carlivar 9y agoMy bet would be Microsoft
- richardknop 9y agoOr Oracle
- dahidahi1 9y agoAnybody but Oracle. Google perhaps, or VMWare.
- zapita 9y agoWhy is that? They seem to be at very different stages.
- nu-world-odor 9y agoMicrosoft. Jesse is in charge there waiting... ready to purge all the aholes so they don't pollute MSFT culture.. it's genius.
- fapjacks 9y agoI don't think so. Docker Inc seems to want to take this as far as they can on their own, and I haven't seen anything to indicate a deviation from their stated and implied goal of becoming an entrenched brand of enterprise platform. I don't think they've done much in the way of positioning themselves to be bought, though I'm sure some of the bigger players would like to buy them. I'm interested in this kind of discussion, though, and would like to hear all about why I may not be right.
- justinclift 9y agoWondered when that would happen. ;)
- merb 9y agowell it would be cool if some of their stuff would be 100% open source than. Like the CoreUpdate interface. But well CoreOS is already extremly extremly simple for running k8s and stuff. We've used CoreOS basically from the beginning. We are small and so had a fleet cluster with 3 nodes. It worked, kinda but due to docker it wasn't a nice experience. Docker just had a too fast changing cycle and to much things didn't worked as we liked. However now we run more and more internal stuff on k8s self hosted cluster and it's basically a breeze. we use ignition to bootstrap the nodes and then we just need to run kubeadm join on every node. everything else is self configuring. bootstrapping k8s was basically just 3x kubeadm init. with calico we can even bgp route every pod and can access them. the only pain point is storage, but this is not a problem of coreos. small scale high available disks would be cool, but this is not an easy problem. we have nfs but it is not on k8s and minio is only good for object storage (and needs 4 nodes, while I would prefer a solution that uses either etcd or k8s configmap as a backing store for HA). Edit: I completly forgotten. Thanks for all what you guys did and I hope you will be good under the RedHat umbrella. (P.S.: if tectonic would be free to use for all sizes, that would be even more amazing, but I'm probably dreaming).
- jacques_chester 9y agoRed Hat typically opensources everything, which is one of the things I admire about them, so you should see repos going up sooner or later. Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, we compete with Red Hat.
- notacoward 9y ago> the only pain point is storage Good thing Red Hat has a couple of distributed-storage projects then.
- simonebrunozzi 9y agoThis should be in the title, by the way: "for a purchase price of $250 million"
- jlgaddis 9y agoOut of curiosity, why "should" that be in the title? There's only so much one can fit in there and, personally, I think the price itself is just fine in the article/press release.
- frakkingcylons 9y agoThis story is inherently about a purchase and all that needs to be added is "for $250M".
- codefreakxff 9y agoWhy is everyone critiquing headlines? The essence is that RedHat bought CoreOS. I didn't realize HN was a place people expected to see purchase prices in headlines.
- simonebrunozzi 9y agoI think a headline with the price tag would have simply been more useful. I had to spend 30 seconds to find it, and that's the main piece of information I wanted.
- grey-area 9y agoNot great news if you use container Linux: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos Container Linux and its investment in container-optimized Linux and automated “over the air” software updates are complementary to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux Atomic Host and Red Hat’s integrated container runtime and platform management capabilities. Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s content, the foundation of our application ecosystem will remain our only Linux offering. Whereas, some of the delivery mechanisms pioneered by Container Linux will be reviewed by a joint integration team and reconciled with Atomic.
- puzzle 9y agoWhich delivery mechanisms? The ContainerLinux boot image updater comes from Chrome and ChromeOS (Omaha). They must be talking about the higher-level partitioning of a cluster into groups with separate policies, etc. Congratulations to the CoreOS team, by the way.
- merb 9y agotectonic, ignition, matchbox? Also CoreUpdate is based on Chrome and ChromeOS but it's the only os that integrated it nicely. Running CoreOS is way simpler to manage than most other distro's because of that fact.
- rzzzt 9y agoAtomic uses rpm-ostree, which looks similar to Omaha from a client perspective (update, roll back to previous version): http://www.projectatomic.io/docs/os-updates/ http://www.projectatomic.io/docs/os-updates/
- merb 9y agois there an alternative to locksmith? the "automatic" update (https://coreos.com/os/docs/latest/update-strategies.html https://coreos.com/os/docs/latest/update-strategies.html) and/or https://github.com/coreos/container-linux-update-operator https://github.com/coreos/container-linux-update-operator? basically on coreos I don't need to run "rpm-ostree" to have an updated system. it is actually updated automatically.
- stmw 9y agoGreat to see their innovation recognized and hopefully it will become even more popular & widespread with RedHat's distribution muscle and enterprise customer relationships.
- gigatexal 9y agoAnd they say there's no money in open source... ;-) Anyone want to wager that MS buys Canonical?
- scriptingnerd 9y agoThis is something I have long thought about. For a long time, I thought they might set their sights on SUSE as well, but they haven't. I dislike the idea of Microsoft acquiring a Linux company. Despite my primary current bread and butter being PowerShell and Windows Servers, I have, in a past life been a UNIX admin, and would prefer the two camps to remain divided. Microsoft embracing "open source" cuts both ways in my opinion. They may well indeed give back, promote GitHub and give away a few trinkets, but they are still the wolf they were under Ballmer, only now led by a much smarter, more saavy CEO.
- gigatexal 9y agoMicrosoft is constantly being chummy with Canonical. Coming to Canonical events — offering the WSL based on Ubuntu, etc. it makes total sense. It’s such a Microsoft thing to do: they could buy them and then offer them as a alternative to Windows and still make a ton of money. Or buy them an make WSL even better and shut everything else down. I really think it’s going to happen. And if they get flack from regulators they can just point to RedHat
- zaat 9y agoThey also befriend RedHat nowadays.They partner with them around MSSQL on OpenShift and RedHat offerings (RHEL, OpenShift) on Azure. They also invite RedHat to their events, let them have sessions and so on. I don't think that the warming relationships means anything in the way of acquisition, what do Microsoft have to gain from such a deal? I think they are far better to work with them as partners.
- pjmlp 9y agoThere is money where one can make a business selling support contracts, training or consulting to companies. Or bundle hardware with source code for the software side. Now for open source desktop software targeted at regular consumers, that is a total different story.
- spraak 9y agoWhy was "Expanding its Kubernetes and Containers Leadership" removed from the title here when it is part of the original article title?
- codefreakxff 9y agomy two cents: "Red Hat to Acquire CoreOS" is fact "Expanding its Kubernetes and Containers Leadership" is hyperbole
- jwildeboer 9y agoJust some facts: Red Hat is #2 corporate committer (after Google and "independent") to Kubernetes[1]. With the acquisition of CoreOS Red Hat engineers now lead or co-lead 15 of the Kubernetes SIGs[2]. Disclaimer: I'm a Red Hatter [1] http://stackalytics.com/?metric=commits&project_type=kubernetes-group&release=all&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_detail_base%3BMdxCr4kgQkGZvd7EJdg1fQ%3D%3D http://stackalytics.com/?metric=commits&project_type=kuberne... [2] https://twitter.com/openshift/status/958454802605846528 https://twitter.com/openshift/status/958454802605846528
- pm90 9y agoRed Hat acquired Ansible, now CoreOS. They seem to be really gunning for the DevOps marketplace.
- djsumdog 9y agoI didn't realize they acquired Ansible.
- samstave 9y agoyep, I would suspect that too many at-scale ops are using either ubuntu/amazon/centos etc are eating at their market share capabilities... buying up these cements them in the devops toolbox a lot longer. Super smart. However, I would love to see how they have evolved their openstack offering and their integration with intel's secure compute since the last time I worked on that project... I havent really looked - but I wonder if at all the meltdown/spectre issue affected them at all. is there any at all risk from a security standpoint where redhat owns the tooling for many devops customers?
- pm90 9y ago> is there any at all risk from a security standpoint where redhat owns the tooling for many devops customers? They open source a lot of their tools, so I don't really think there's any lock-in (I assume that is what you meant by "insecurity" in them owning the tools, and not traditional computer security)
- samstave 9y agoYeah thats what I meant -- but "trust but verify" -- how verify?
- emmelaich 9y agoAnd their Kubernetes - Openshift - seems like one of the best options for K8S with it's extra sauces.
- lima 9y ago
- mack1001 9y agoCongratulations Alex & co for a great exit. I think the price is great considering that it is pretty much impossible to survive as an independent company in the infra space.
- willow9886 9y agoA quick D&B search on CoreOS, Inc. shows revenues of ~$550,000 [1], which means at $250m acquisition price, RH paid ~454X revenues..! [1] http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/company-search.html?term=coreos http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/company-search.ht...
- aberoham 9y agoI have personally seen checks cut to CoreOS that were larger than the D&B number you quote. The set of similar corporate customers we'd run into was surprisingly vast and diverse. Redhat's made a brilliant move here.
- zapita 9y agoI doubt CoreOS has any meaningful revenue (my guess is they are between $5M and $10M of recurring annual revenue). I also doubt they have a single customer that isn't either A. already a Red Hat customer, or B. too small to be interesting to them. For $250M Red Hat bought outstanding technology, a strong R&D team with community street cred, and upstream influence in Kubernetes. They know how to monetize these things. They definitely did not buy revenue or customers. In fact they got a great price precisely because CoreOS failed to monetize these things sustainably, and needed a way out. It's a great outcome for the team, and a great match for Red Hat.
- chrissnell 9y agoAs someone who used CoreOS in a commercial setting, I think you are spot on. We wanted to pay them but we were never big enough to afford their commercial offerings. They wanted a lot of cash for their subscriptions and I think most would-be customers were looking for something less expensive--basically open source with support. Redhat offers an existing and proven enterprise customer base that will cut the big checks. Redhat customers are the customers that CoreOS always wanted but likely struggled to acquire.
- greglindahl 9y ago
- cdelsolar 9y agosup polvi
- segmondy 9y agoHappy for the team, sad for the product. I've always wondered how long they would survive for. I was actually afraid they would go out of business.
- jacques_chester 9y agoThis is a good move for CoreOS and Red Hat, I think. I've thought for a while that the platform market would shake out and be left with one and at most two winners. Previously we saw Deis fold into Microsoft and now CoreOS into Red Hat. I expect that Docker will run independently for another few years before their investors realise it's time to push for an acquisition exit, but it's unclear by whom. I figure Heptio will go to one of Red Hat, Google or Microsoft. As for CoreOS's technologies, my guess is that Red Hat will be gently herding Tectonic and Container Linux users to OpenShift and RHEL respectively. About the only products I expect to survive fully intact would be Quay and etcd. Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, we compete with Red Hat and Docker. So read my remarks with whatever mix of skepticism and mirth you think is appropriate.
- politician 9y agoI agree that this is a good move by Red Hat to position themselves with rkt and Quay ahead of Docker going to Microsoft (who will pay a premium to try to put this genie back into the bottle) Given their self-inflicted XHR debacle that dethroned Office, I just don't see Microsoft passing up this opportunity. Google, on the other hand, doesn't need Docker to plug any holes in their go to market unless it's a blocking play. However, Docker is already cozy with Microsoft, so I don't see a Google acquisition going anywhere.
- zapita 9y ago> this is a good move by Red Hat to position themselves with rkt Red Hat does not give a damn about rkt. They care about Kubernetes, specifically establishing and consolidating a dominant position in upstream kubernetes development. CoreOS helps them do that. rkt on the other hand is a dead project and completely useless to Red Hat. > Google, on the other hand, doesn't need Docker to plug any holes in their go to market unless it's a blocking play. Google has a massive hole in their go to market. They have no clue how to sell to enterprises, and because of that they are falling behind AWS and Microsoft in the cloud market. However you're right that it would take much more than a Docker to plug that hole. Honestly if I were Google I would try to buy Red Hat, or an even larger enterprise vendor like SAP or Oracle. Not only would they be buying the enterprise distribution they lack, but they would also secure a major customer for their own infrastructure and keep up with the economies of scale AMZN and MSFT are building up. But I don't know that they will develop the humility to admit that they need that - and even if they do there's no guarantee that the integration would work... Culturally they are worlds apart. EDIT: another interesting acquisition target for Google Cloud would be Vmware. Diane Greene founded it, then got fired by EMC post-acquisition, something I am betting she still holds a grudge over. Now she runs Google Cloud. If I'm her, I like the idea of buying the place and savoring a triumphal Steve Jobs takeover moment. I don't know to what extent this is complicated by this week's announcement of a Vmware/Dell reverse merger. Maybe they buy the whole thing? But then would Michael Dell want to run this new mega-Cloud group? And how does that play with Diane's ambitions? This might bool down to whether Diane likes the idea of working for Michael Dell. He has vastly more go-to-market experience which is what matters most in their position. I really think there should be an HBO Silicon Valley - Enterprise spinoff :-)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sturadnidge 9y agoCongrats to the CoreOS team, although I’m a little bit sad to see this happen it’s a way better outcome than what happened with RethinkDB!
- mankash666 9y agoFrom a financial viewpoint, CoreOs took in an investment of ~$50M [1] and sold for $250M. Assuming the $50M investment comprised 50% of the equity pool, a 2.5X return on investment isn't too bad. [1]: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/coreos https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/coreos
- ZiiS 9y agoThat seems an unlikely assumption. $30M of series B in May 2016 would have been at around $200M valuation. Given the risks that is a disappointing return.
- zapita 9y agoIt's worse than that, their series B valuation was closer to $300M. Great for the founders, hopefully great for the team, solid for early investors. Disappointing for latest investors, but shit happens - and the best investors understand the long-term value of graciously allowing the founders to follow their heart, even at the cost of a short-term disappointment.
- kaushikt 9y agoThis is true. CoreOS was doing well and i am sure could grow on their own too. Why did CoreOS go for this deal though? also, how could the investors agree?
- zapita 9y agoThey want for the deal because, in spite of doing well on the community side, they did not go as well on the business side. Enterprise Linux and Enterprise Kubernetes are very crowded and difficult markets. Being popular with startups is a big advantage in many ways, but it doesn't pay the bills.
- Terretta 9y agoThis is important. A startup has to get beyond upstart. Despite being a ‘buyer’ it was virtually impossible to get traditional enterprise risk management processes to bet the farm on an upstart OS + platform. Now a vendor that enterprise starts to trust can offer this and everyone wins. It’s just what the doctor ordered for the K8s roadmap at RedHat.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sandGorgon 9y agoi wonder if it will mean that coreos becomes the official server-side fedora to rhel ... and replaces the community powered centos.
- kuschku 9y agoThe RedHat press release states that RedHat won't maintain any distro aside of those they previously maintained, which many interpret as that all Core OS distros are now EOL. This is painful and sad.
- smarterclayton 9y agoThe exact quote is “Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s content, the foundation of our application ecosystem will remain our only Linux offering” The key point is “content”, which means the packages and kernel. Atomic itself is only based on RHEL content at the same schedule as RHEL (rpm-ostree and some of the tooling is the difference). So it’s not quite about Container Linux the concept being dead, just that Red Hat isn’t going to create a new packaging stream (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, RHEL, SUSE are all independent streams) because then Red Hat would have to duplicate all that work. I can’t speak to what the plans will be, but the FAQ is not saying Container Linux is dead. Disclaimer: Red Hat employee
- kuschku 9y agoThat's a nice way to talk around the bush, but that doesn't solve the issue that, without warning or deprecation plan container linux will at some point just stop working. There's no timeline or FAQ telling us how we can keep our container linux deployments, with the same software, with the same configs, working for the next years.
- smarterclayton 9y agoI don’t think anything has been decided yet about the fate of Container Linux. I do think there is a strong desire to find a path that doesn’t leave users like yourself high and dry. Hopefully more specifics will be coming soon.
- quotemstr 9y agoSo CoreOS's claim to fame is that it _only_ runs containers? How is that useful? You can run containers on any distribution.
- kuschku 9y agoBecause it does the rest for you, magically. You mount a config file into the system, but CoreOS on it (or boot per PXE), and coreOS does the entire rest for you. You never have to install or reinstall, never have to deal with updates. If you put that config file on any system with coreOS, it'll be exactly like yours. This means I can create a config to tell a server to join a kubernetes cluster, and then whenever I create a new server I simply mount the config in, and am done. I never have to set up or configure servers. Everything is handled automatically. No more fighting with Ubuntu wiping all repos 10 minutes (!) after a version is replaced by the successor, never dealing with misconfiguration. It's truly amazing, and I loved using it. Going back to normal distros is painful.
- quotemstr 9y agoAh, I see. So it's basically integrated Puppet, but with first class support from the configured system
- kuschku 9y agoYes, and this is fast. I can spin up a new server, have it configured, started, updated, and joined to my kubernetes cluster in 12 seconds (!). And it automatically handles updates across the cluster - only a certain amount of servers restarts at a time, allowing you to stay constantly up while handling updates automatically, and potentially scaling out in seconds. It's sad RedHat EOL'd it immediately.
- op00to 9y agoRed Hat EOLd what immediately?
- wowtip 9y agoIs this a good technical fit? Is this good for the tech community as a whole? I am a bit disheartened to see discussions often going in the direction of big corporation politics / power play, rather than how it benefits the community.
- baldfat 9y agoThe only thing positive I can say is I MUCH rather have Redhat buy them than Oracle. I think Redhat has been a positive community member and well I will invoke the mom rule for Oracle.
- haikuginger 9y agoMom rule == "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"?
- knutster 9y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ln9RU1PLOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ln9RU1PLOA
- pankajdoharey 9y agoSince it has Red Hat in its name now i dont feel like using it anymore. Would use BusyBox or Ubuntu Core instead.
- fulminatorz68 9y agoWhen I think RH I read an older less shitty company without a monetary involvement in a lot of speculative tech. It was a linux company. If it was up to me my employees would be able to: 1) Install and hybrid a physical infra with LXC and KVM/QEMU. 2) Use Freebsd for anything else.
- thedevopsguy 9y agoIt's all about Openshift. Redhat developers have actively contributed to Kubernetes for about two years now. Now they'll own the entire stack and have a great integration story for enterprises. Even though containers have been around 3+ year's in the form of docker, corporations still don't have a scooby on how to integrate their existing deployment and development workflows.
- planar_vector 9y ago> Now they'll own the entire stack and have a great integration story for enterprises. Even though containers have been around 3+ year's in the form of docker, corporations still don't have a scooby on how to integrate their existing deployment and development workflows. I second this. If its a legacy stack, enterprises struggle to fully containerize their apps and commit to deploying with a container orchestration layer like OpenShift or Kubernetes. IMHO, we need more enterprises to get over this barrier, than view it as a passion project by over eager devops' teams...
- tiuPapa 9y agoI started learning about containerization just this week. I didn't even know there were other popular alternatives to docker. So from what I gather, coreOS/rkt is an alternative to alpine/docker, with kubernetes instead of docker swarm as their primary orchestration solution?
- y4mi 9y agono. there is no clear distinction like that with coreOS. Its just one of the distributions that try to be a ... docker hypervisor for lack of a better term. It tries to be a tiny distribution for the sole purpose of letting you use a docker daemon. a direct competitor would be RancherOS /edit: furthermore, the kubernetes docker daemon is (afaik) a fork from the original docker and predates docker swarm by a long time. It was the only way to really scale with docker back then. Docker Swarm seems to be a viable alternative at this point, however. And honestly, its way easier to use from my experience.
- dahidahi1 9y agoCalling rkt a competitor to docker would be a stretch. Docker has undergone really vast improvements since its inception which is not really true for rkt.
- codergr 9y agoWhat i dont get is why Google ventures gave it ? Perhaps because CoreOS was based on chromeos and doesnt fit to fuschia OS and the new microkernel ? Anyways congrats to both RH & CoreOS. RH got passionate people in love with problem and CoreOS Core team monetised the value and innovation which they shared openly to the community. Thanks CoreOS team good luck !