4 ms·

As an early adopter of CoreOS, paid Tectonic user, I find this distressing, disappointing, and it leaves me wondering where I can turn. This is the opposite di

by crad 8y ago

As an early adopter of CoreOS, paid Tectonic user, I find this distressing, disappointing, and it leaves me wondering where I can turn. This is the opposite direction of what RedHat should have done. I was hoping this was a acquisition to move RedHat's technology stack moving forward and instead it's one to move an innovative and solid platform backward. Acquire, assimilate and kill off competition, just like other RedHat acquisitions before it. :(

Proven 8y ago
Of course. You probably expected something like this might happen when you decided to use CoreOS... I wish there was a Debian (or better, Devuan) based system that could just work well, but it can’t happen without big money... I doubt Tectonic would have survived without this acquisition.
jzelinskie 8y ago
I'm genuinely interested why you believe this is the case. Can you point to anything in specific about the converged stack that makes you feel uneasy? From the CoreOS perspective, OpenShift will literally become the new version Tectonic, which was work from before the acquisition, but with the ability to install additional OpenShift components as optional Operators.
- crad 8y ago
  The move to Fedora on its a huge negative from my perspective. If you're just dropping OpenShift and rebranding Tectonic as OpenShift, I guess that's ok, but I'm still stuck dealing with RedHat (the organization) which in my 20+ years of being a Linux user has largely been more negative than positive.
  - jzelinskie 8y ago
    The tooling to create the immutable image is what is changing from Mantle (our Gentoo and ChromeOS toolchain) to Fedora tools. From the consumer perspective, you will not see any RPMs or package managers in our distribution. If you have not built a custom image of Container Linux yourself, you weren't even aware this software existed.
joshberkus 8y ago
It is to move our technology stack forwards. Container Linux and Tectonic have technology which the RH container stack has lacked (e.g. Ignition, Operator-based host upgrades). At the same time, there's tech in Atomic/Openshift which hasn't been available in the CoreOS stack, like rpm-ostree and S2I. We're really trying to do a "best of both" with the new projects. Of course, you may disagree with what's "best". You know where to reach me (Josh Berkus) if you want to send backchannel feedback.

by crad 8y ago

Proven 8y ago

Of course. You probably expected something like this might happen when you decided to use CoreOS... I wish there was a Debian (or better, Devuan) based system that could just work well, but it can’t happen without big money... I doubt Tectonic would have survived without this acquisition.

jzelinskie 8y ago

I'm genuinely interested why you believe this is the case. Can you point to anything in specific about the converged stack that makes you feel uneasy? From the CoreOS perspective, OpenShift will literally become the new version Tectonic, which was work from before the acquisition, but with the ability to install additional OpenShift components as optional Operators.

crad 8y ago
The move to Fedora on its a huge negative from my perspective. If you're just dropping OpenShift and rebranding Tectonic as OpenShift, I guess that's ok, but I'm still stuck dealing with RedHat (the organization) which in my 20+ years of being a Linux user has largely been more negative than positive.
- jzelinskie 8y ago
  The tooling to create the immutable image is what is changing from Mantle (our Gentoo and ChromeOS toolchain) to Fedora tools. From the consumer perspective, you will not see any RPMs or package managers in our distribution. If you have not built a custom image of Container Linux yourself, you weren't even aware this software existed.

joshberkus 8y ago

It is to move our technology stack forwards. Container Linux and Tectonic have technology which the RH container stack has lacked (e.g. Ignition, Operator-based host upgrades). At the same time, there's tech in Atomic/Openshift which hasn't been available in the CoreOS stack, like rpm-ostree and S2I. We're really trying to do a "best of both" with the new projects. Of course, you may disagree with what's "best". You know where to reach me (Josh Berkus) if you want to send backchannel feedback.